Happy Birthday Marines 240 Years

[DaBurglar]

Also. for those of you agreeing that Isis is having " a hell of a month" and think the US needs to just go in there and blow them away (unless you think or want, Russia to now be the ones to do the dirty work), please draw your attention to THIS article:http://www.businessinsider.com/weakness ... -2015-3See, sometimes (as annoyingly painful as it might be) when it comes to evil totalitarian regimes or threats, the right action to take is NOTHING (or act conservatively and escalate SLOWLY).......quite often these empty, evil forces or "movements" burn themselves out or implode from their own moral bankruptness.Case in point (since everyone likes to bash Bill clinton's so called "wimpy, empty" foreign policy), back in the mid to late 1990s, there was a call to have the USA (and Nato) to fully commit their military forces to invading/occupying the BALKANS, since the horrible genocide (on all three sides, Serb, Muslim-Bosnia, and Croatian) was happening and many thought "my goodness, the USA should stop this!"      Clinton employed his cautious, use-force-only-as-a-last-resort, approach, and when it came time he did employ LIMITED force......it is now widely regarded as one of his biggest successes (although tell that to the poor Bosnian Muslims who were massacred BEFORE NATO finally showed up in the skies above Bosnia).....nonetheless, the USA and its allies did not end up having its soldiers killed (nor billions of dollars wasted) on the ground, and the situation eventually improved and settled down.        Was it perfect? of course not......could it have turned out much worse? you bet.....!On the other hand, Clinton's (and the world's) failure to act in Rwanda's genocide in 1994 showed the hypocrisy (even racism) that exists amongst the highest levels of government around the world, and ranks even above his failure to kill Bin laden as Clinton's greatest foreign policy mistake.

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar again you change your story, arguement, position, whatever.

In your first post you wrote of the innocent bystanders and civillians who are suffering as casualties of wars but in your next post you say that the United States used: "far too less force than they should have" when toppling Sadam. Logically using MORE force would affect more innocent bystanders and civillians, right?

So which is it DaBurglar Fisher?

[DaBurglar]

DaBurglar again you change your story, arguement, position, whatever.

In your first post you wrote of the innocent bystanders and civillians who are suffering as casualties of wars but in your next post you say that the United States used: "far too less force than they should have" when toppling Saddam. Logically using MORE force would affect more innocent bystanders and civillians, right?

So which is it DaBurglar Fisher?Ted, you are either severely lacking in reading comprehension skills, or you just simply have a COMPULSIVE need to find fault and pick apart things that have absolutely no meaning to the real important issue(s) being discussed........in other words, MOST situations and things in life call for a subtle, flexible, "deeper" tact and understanding, NOT a "THIS or THAT", BLACK & WHITE, EITHER / OR  situation that you repeatedly attempt to paint everything.     My first post was NOT about innocent bystanders and children....the theme and point of my first post was about MUCH larger, more complex and diverse issues, and simply mentioned Innocents and children as  one (of many) collateral and ancillary issues and elements of a wider, deeper picture!!!!!   For crying out loud!!!! THEN, I clearly (VERY CLEARLY) state that using force is, and should be, a last resort when all other REASONABLE efforts have been exhausted......at that point, when using force becomes the best, most viable option, it BEHOOVES the president and the military leaders to use and commit AS MUCH (and as diverse an array) FORCE as is needed to not only do the job but with lots of room to spare (since quite often in war, unexpected or unforeseen things happen and having reserve capacity and excessive resources can actually HELP KEEP CASUALTIES down.)I cannot believe that you cannot understand this concept (in fact it is a military tenet):   Using LOTS of force and resources when faced with inevitable conflict or battle can help keep the overall casualty rate DOWN and SHORTEN wars......I CLEARLY mentioned how the first gulf war was quickly and easily prosecuted by the USA & its allies for the main reason that it committed a MASSIVE force to do the job.   By ensuring a QUICK victory, casualties of all types are kept to a minimum...."quick" means keeping the conflict as short in terms of time as possible, and is the single biggest driver of TOTAL casulaties (unless nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction are used!)    I would bet Casino Knight knows exactly what I am talking about (if he is truly a former marine then he DEFINITELY knows what I am talking about!):   To minimize total overall casulaties, always commit overwhelming force to whatever battle or conflict you are faced with......Or, as Natahn Bedford Forrest said in the US Civil War:  "Get there firstest, with the mostest...."

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar what exactly was the central theme of your first post? Whatever it was; it gets lost in everything else that you run on about.

I have a decent understanding of military logic and strategy so please do not patronize me by saying that I cannot understand the use of proper force in a military theater of operations. But when an enemy routinely hides in populated urban areas even smart weapons have their drawbacks when it comes to controlling a number of civilian casualties. I'm sorry but gone are the days of two armies forming skirmish lines across from each other and then just firing away until the last man standing.

Use of "LOTS" of force (I love how you CAPITALIZE words for absolutely NO REASON) and resources dramatically raises the financial cost and that is one of the things you've been griping about. It also raises the cost of civilian losses and THAT lowers the opportunity our government has to make and keep both: allies and public support. Public support not only inside, but also outside of our borders.

Unfortunately, because we didn't get to the middle east "firstest" we've had to make some adjustments. We can't use "the mostest (in my opinion, nuclear) because this would result in more events like France just suffered. To all Frenchmen, I weep for you right now.

If we ever met I could tell you some stories of just where I was in 1991. I was recently talking with a WWII vet who served in the pacific and he told me he has not eaten coconut since he got back.

[Casino Knight]

Daburglar: Were we at a bar and you made a challenge as to my legitimacy as a Marine, I'd simply slap down my challenge coin, and you'd be buying drinks all night long or be getting your ass kicked. Pick one.
I could post a copy of my DD-214 and Honorable Discharge, but it wouldn't really prove anything because I'd redack my personal information. I could send you pictures of the Vietnamese countryside taken with my Pentax Spotmatic or 8mm movies while flying Medevacs as an A/G to the USS Repose. But I won't because you still don't understand that there are no former Marines.

As to your assertion that massive force is the single biggest driver of limiting casualties is not correct. From my perspective poorly conceived "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" determine who lives or dies. We have them and our enemies use them against us.

[notes1]

if the events of 1941 were happening now, we would all be speaking german in a couple of years.

[DaBurglar]

  Daburglar: Were we at a bar and you made a challenge as to my legitimacy as a Marine, I'd simply slap down my challenge coin, and you'd be buying drinks all night long or be getting your ass kicked. Pick one. I could post a copy of my DD-214 and Honorable Discharge, but it wouldn't really prove anything because I'd redack my personal information. I could send you pictures of the Vietnamese countryside taken with my Pentax Spotmatic or 8mm movies while flying Medevacs as an A/G to the USS Repose. But I won't because you still don't understand that there are no former Marines.
WTF??**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Were you a marine CK?  Oh wait, scratch that, let me rephrase.....Are you a marine ck? 
[/QUOTE]

Yes I am. Not as Mean. Not as Lean. But Still A Marine. Southeast Asia College of Warfare. Class of '68/'69[/QUOTE]Ok,
I'm confused........HERE is where you replied to my original post, and
it would seem that HERE you clearly grasp that I am in fact honestly
ASKING a real question..... if you are or were in fact a Marine?Go re-read my original post to you and subsequent posts......I defy you to show me
exactly WHERE I challenged your .... "legitimacy"  (whatever the flip that means) ...... as a Marine......and I am
the one who first stated there are no former marines in my original
post when I noticed the past tense I incorrectly used, which indicates I am "aware" of the fact that Marines regard being a marine as something that does not end even after you are no longer a.......marine...... Bad news ......  I am neither  impressed
or intimidated or "afraid"  of you....... but by all means, make
your way to AC and bring your DD-214, I am actually now genuinely interested in
actually reading it and seeing what amazing things you did and achieved in "nam!    However, as I told Tedlark a long time ago, people
who tend to post pseudo  threats on a partially anonymous internet forum like what you just
did ("getting my arse kicked" because I...."dare" to question you)  are
exactly like little kids who hide behind mommy's skirt and stick their
tongues out and go "nah nah nah" to the other kids nearby.     What do
you think posting such moronic crap achieves or does for you?Making
such a threat (or even if a jest) is pointless because OBVIOUSLY there is
no way you can ever be tested or put on the spot to actually follow thru
or back it up.......EVERYONE here knows that there is no way in hell
you would ever do such a thing.    But it speaks VOLUMES about who you
really are and what type of person you are that you would post
it.....just like you did before a year ago with that other stupid,
absurd post about guns and my being "Wheelchair-jacked".......Here's
my e-mail,  club_da_burglar@yahoo.com ......  please feel free to
contact me privately so we can continue this dialogue without getting
you in anymore trouble than you might already be in, and without
subjecting the rest of the forum to this foolishness......