Eddo36

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?

Maybe I have served and maybe I haven't. But since I get labeled by so many one-dimensional arumentalists from this board that I have since stop caring about labels. Both the Marines and Army invaded Iraq at about the same time. Troops deploy to the other side of the world only as fast as the Navy ships can take them. They both blitz through the invasion with similar limited protected logistic lines. And both Army and Marines still in Iraq fighting insurgents. So your explanation on how the Army and Marines are tactically different is respectfully and honestly total bs. There is nothing the Marines can do that the other branches can do with very minor changes that does not require an entire seperate branch of the military to do. The Marines Corps would be perfect to make into an American Foreign Legion IMO.

*edited by Walsingham for adult content*

On par with the French Foreign Legion, foreign fighters are given green cards or citizenship or other monetary incentives to join and fight America's wars. They will be trained and disciplined via Marine Corps style boot camp and methods. They will be less trusted with top secret matters and will mostly serve as infantry. American citizens can also join the AFL, as French citizens can join the FLL, should they wish, and become the new "US Marines". Since the USMC is very similar to the US Army already, and tough on discipline, it can be converted to become an American Foreign Legion. Now there USMC does not have to be converted into the AFL, but IMHO it is simpler than creating an entirely new branch. That way those who want to fight can really fight, and gain a greater reward than mere E-1 pay which is equal to roughly national minimum wage.

UCMJ means US military law. Number 125 one states: Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm What do you people think about this? I think it should be repealed. The straight people in uniform at least have other ways to make love, unlike men of different orientations who have no other ways to engage in love and are thus discriminated on. Also affected are those with harmless fetishes that does no damage in reality.

Points for this man. That's precisely the point in my opinion. No, it's not going to stop all terrorism. He's already known to be occupying a largely inspirational/ceremonial role. He's like Col. Sanders is to KFC. But yes, it would be worth doing, I feel. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I mean why would catching him benefit in a tactical sense? Someone else will just take his place. And someone after that.

Osama is only one man. If he gets killed or captured, some other fanatic is just going to rise and take his place. Why the effort for just one man?

I don't understand why most women shave their legs and armpits and men don't have to and still fit in socially. Is there really any need to not let it be natural as God had intended?

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2774&lang=en http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm So much for your sources. Illegal war caused by illegal people to other illegal people making illegal problems. Some folks in this thread can't get anymore wrong than that.

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I bet they're still looking for WMD's while they're at it, too right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see you are keeping up with current affairs. The commission searched and reported that there were none to be found. But you miss my point, and make light of the deaths of all those poor innocent people who suffered and died horribly under Saddam, to make your na

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I bet they're still looking for WMD's while they're at it, too right?

Game over for 3000+ US troops and 100000+ Iraqi civilians too. Game only half over for those 30,000 troops who are only wounded, missing limbs and such. And counting. And I'm not responsible for those deaths, what did I do? It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

You'll get tired of italian food real quick.

I'm talking about Iraq only. By "job" that needs to be finish you mean the quagmire started by the US? That's really humanitarian. Whoa using profanity now. You seriously don't need to overuse smileys and resort to flames and deep sarcasm if this wasn't getting to you, for it only shows your insecurity in that matter. And purpose or "accident" or "friendly buddy fire" are all the same. Just because they didn't mean to (except in that case where they got to rape the Iraqi girls and shoot the whole family to cover it up, or when they shoot innocent people when they can't find insurgents) don't matter. They signed up. They invaded a prefectly good country and messed it up by making it volatile, causing hundred upon thousands of civilian casualties. They secured their place in Valhalla. And so do anyone who is supporting it, for the blood is on your hands as well as theirs by you wanting them to be there to kill and get killed for a pointless reason by USA's own wiretapping invading dictator who ordered his minions to start the crap that hit the fan. Just on par with Nazi stormtroopers of the 1940's era, and the excuse of "oh I'm just following orders" didn't cut it for those Nazis at Nuremberg, because they got hanged anyhow. They got to give toys because they probably killed the kid's dad in the war, making orphans and amputees by accidently bombing their homes. Trying to build up a little PR because the Iraqis are all pissed off at them by being there, and able to bang in their house every now and then on a constant basis and flexicuffing them in futile search of insurgents. And now past those economic sanctions of that past, the entire Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles because of the invasion. Water sources, in shambles. Agriculture, shambles. The Iraqi military and police is ruined and cannot maintian order anymore. And it's the fault of the soldiers for doing it US soldiers and their very few allies even though the invasion was condemned by the UN secetary general and the World Court at that time. The purpose of the invasion was to find WMD's. Did they find any? No. So the reason was switched to topple a dictator of a country where people don't want USA soldiers around? Despite the fact that USA supported Saddam some time earlier in the Iraq-Iran war? tsk tsk Maybe if conservatives didn't thump their bible in a Muslim world, this wouldn't have happened. USA already made a bad page for itself in future history books. Along with countless others. To the people who fight willingly and support it, congrats on being part of that history. Especially those who don't believe in the cause, but are still fighting anyways because it's their "duty" to defend USA by invading and mesing up a once harmless country on the other side of the globe that posed no threat to national security. It takes people like them to make the world go around. GO USA! WOOT! And all that. Because USA is the perfect country and always the good guy, and can't be dead wrong and responsible for lighting the match for the current fiasco resulting in so many lives lost. Their weakness is pride.

Sure. Be creative.

Guyver. Bio booster armor.

"See spouting out the same asinine drivel, I see. Admit it, the only reason you started this topic, like so many others, was so you could have a stage to voice your anti-Americanism (and get others to do the same). " Best way to lose an argument is to label your foe. In this case, a voicer anti-American, especially since he states real facts. Because it is you who view the argument one-dimensionally. "First off, the Iraqis wanted Saddam out to begin with. He wasn't well-liked. Even most of those who hate us over there didn't like him any more. His followers in Iraq were very few and are decreasing still." They wanted Saddam out. They also want the US. We aren't well like there. They want us out. Their followers are increasing and increasing. "Secondly, if that's your line of reasoning, how come it didn't happen in Afghanistan? Why don't you see Afghans slaughtering themselves on the same level? Simple. We are not solely the cause of the conflict." If we aren't, then why don't we get out? Nothing to do with us right? Why stay in Iraq? :crazy: "Saddam, though I hate to admit, actually kept things stable in Iraq, though he did so with an iron fist. The Iraqis were too repressed by him to actually be able to do things to each other." You hate the truth. Understandable. Truth hurts, as does real life. Maybe a part of the reason is that we helped Saddam decades earlier, then after hating him we put economic sanctions on the country and let the people starve. Also an example is the failed Kurddish revolt we "encouraged" to support result in massacre and resent. "Don't believe me, look at the casualties. How many victims of terrorist attacks are US troops and how many are Iraqis?" As of this time 3000 US killed, ten times that number more wounded/maimed/aputated for life, more suffering from PTSD of killing innocent kids. As for Iraqi deaths, a LOT probably. Especially those who help out the USA to feed their families after we F'ed up their countries infrasturcture and economy with economic sanctions long before the war. You're only an oxymoron. "Case closed." So insecure of your stance that you try to place a last word statement? Ain't that easy when you're on the losing side.

Hang Bush and make the violence stop a little bit?

Iraq didn't have anything to do with Osama bin Laden. Why do some people not know that?

If I could biologically alter my body, it would probably be night vision eyes on my left eye, while leaving my right one intact. Yours?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's simply because there are more US troops in Iraq. I figured even you'd be able to figure that out. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh it's because the invasion, and initial and previous troop buildup for occupation started pissing them off? With all those "friendly" fires demolishing homes with smart bombs and soldiers from a country of a much different religion and implying new and unwelcomed sets of ideas to their country's culture, government and social way of life, led by a bible thumping conservative start raping a few of them and kill much more Iraqis, either those who are innocent or those who wants them out for that same exact reason?

Who do you mean by "we"? All Americans, or the minority who support the war? I say that whoever wants to go fight there go do it themselves, leave the rest out of it.

How about we allow Iraqi troops to come to USA and patrol our streets so we would know how it's like to be occupied and get our doors kicked in every now and then, since we got American citizens taking arms via the God-given right of the 2nd Amendment to defend our country, having the santity of our private homes taken away. Since USA got tons of WMD's piled up in bases all over the country, isn't USA guilty in that sense that is the reason Iraq was invaded? Or overthrowing and hanging a dictator (Bush) and get one hundred thousand American citizens killed, as Iraq suffered with their own people? Our water sources, agriculture, military and industries destroyed, our own country being pushed back years. And have 180,000 Muslims patrol our streets (plus 30,000) more to come. With those 30,000 troops coming, we sure won't fight back as insurgents. Kinda how they would feel, no?

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this some simplified math equation you worked out yourself, or what? It's not like every new soldier in Iraq spawns off an insurgent. As has been said, more troops = more people to kill the other guys in battle, and less casualties for us. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So there are less insurgents now than there was in 2003?

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents?