Happy Birthday Marines 240 Years

[Casino Knight]

SEMPER FI.

[Tedlark]

We could really use Chesty right about now. Happy Birthday Marines.

[olds442jetaway]

I will say happy birthday to my father in law in the sky who was a Marine Scout in WW11 and was awarded the Silver Star. I have posted before about how he went back into action well before his many wounds were healed. I met him in 1969 when I met my wife. He and I had many fascinating conversations about events during that time when the girls weren't around. He unfortunately has been gone some 25 years now, but certainly not forgotten. God bless him and the many who keep us safe today.

[DaBurglar]

SEMPER FI. Were you a marine CK?  Oh wait, scratch that, let me rephrase.....Are you a marine ck?  (because as I now remember, once you join the marines, you never leave.)We had a Veterans Day panel in town yesterday, and the theme was (truthfully) "the Horror of war"......The respect I have for the men (and women) who put themselves through the awful experiences and ordeals of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, IRaq I & II, and Afghanistan, along with the countless smaller skirmishes and battles throughout history (like Beirut, Grenada etc etc etc) is huge.    I honestly feel that any veteran who served Honorably, or who was wounded legitimately in the line of duty, deserves our undying gratitude and help (where needed and within reason.)That said, after listening to the stories told about the true nature of warfare and combat and what it does to all participants as well as the innocent bystanders and civilians and family members of combatants, it only reinforced my opposition and fervent hostility to people who IGNORANTLY wail and carry on about how "this country" needs to stand up to <insert name of perceived "evil country" or "evil force"> and who know NOTHING about what service men (like Marines) who get caught on the front lines of these wars actually go through....it serves to remind all of us that the responsibility of a commander in chief like the US president is to AVOID all use of force except when absolutely unavoidably needed....in other words it is supposed to be a LAST resort, because of the sheer unalterable COST entailed.  and I do not mean cost in dollars, although that too is significant....Many of the veterans yesterday expressed absolute contempt for the ongoing "Salutes to the troops" that continue to take place at sporting events and public gatherings....they correctly pointed out that, since 9/11 when it first started, after 5000 days of continuous combat in the Middle east (iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere)  these "Salutes" have become hollow and repetitious, and only serve to act as "Anesthesia"  for the public's perception of war and our country's involvement, and give rise to these ignorant calls and shouts to "go after" things like ISIS..     They said when you constantly see saccharine things like Homecomings (a father returning to his family) it gives a false impression of what is actually going on and the obscures the true cost of war.    They pointed out how radically different things would be IF...IF instead of these "feel good" moments the military broadcast things like a Casualty officer pulling up to a home to inform the residents that their son (or daughter) was killed in the line of duty, showing the mother or wife (or husband) of the deceased falling to the ground and wailing even before the casualty officer has uttered a single word.....I guarantee if they showed more of that the cry for "Action" against ISIS and others would be curtailed.Dick Chenye, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush (and OBAMA....and BILL & HILLARY CLINTON), et al, never served a single stinkin' day of active duty in combat.....the HYPOCRISY of these men being the architects of the IRaq and Afghanistan war is galling.    Donald Trump never did a single day of duty (hell, people like him NEVER do...)   Same goes with MANY of the other candidates for president currently hogging the airwaves.....doesnt anyone else find this a bit wrong?

[Tedlark]

You mean does anyone find wrong the notion of politicians making policy and the military being used to defend and enforce those same policies?

[notes1]

according to Wikipedia, 10 of the last 13 presidents served in the military. FDR, OBAMA and CLINTON did not. as best as i know, VP'S and cabinet secretaries cannot send our troops to conflicts.  to all vets, including those on this site, THANK YOU for keeping us safe.

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar I wanted to add something else after I re-read your post. You mentioned "what servicemen go through on the front lines actually go through."

It may come as a shock to you but when people sign up for military service to their country, including the military academies, they know the possibility of front line (or any battle line, or combat duty) hazards.This includes death and dismemberment. I salute those who serve(d) with a snappy salute and to those who served but had selfish desires (i.e. ROTC paying for college) when they enlisted:also get a salute from me but minus some of the snappiness.

[notes1]

i know this, i would not want to be POTUS, making decisions about sending our young, brave people to any conflict. much has been made about Bush's decisions and there is much to debate. the cost of human sacrifice and money has been enormous. but, look at it another way, what has it cost this country and the world, when Clinton did not take out bin laden in the 90's, when he had the opportunity? what has been the cost in human life to the world because Obama did not keep a small force in Iraq, after Biden declared iraq- one of obama's 'great achievements'? what has been and will be the cost to fight ISIS (they are having a hell of a month, couple hundred killed in a plane and 41 more blown up in beirut today). what has been been and will be the cost in human life, because Obama did not enforce his own 'red line' in syria? as was stated in the debate the other night, if one thinks the cost of fighting terrorists is high fighting them on their turf, the cost is even higher, fighting them here.

[Casino Knight]

[/QUOTE]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

[DaBurglar]

My point is that the actual use of force SHOULD be when all other viable means of problem solving and resolution have been used and exhausted.     Of course, there is a time when force is needed, but obviously NO ONE can predict the future, and demonizing Bill Clinton because he did not kill Bin Laden when he supposedly had chances to do this is a empty argument......how can you possibly know that the NEXT guy who took Bin Laden's place back in 1998 would not have been worse or would have perpetrated WORSE acts?      This same logic and argument dictates that you start killing or fighting EVERY instance of someone who is "evil", cannot you see that?Its obvious to anyone with any brain that, as Bad as Saddam Hussein was, the IRaq of 1990s is vastly preferable to what exists now (especially with the COST to the USA in dollars and most of all, BLOOD)......Saddam Hussein's Iraq  was mortal enemies with IRAN, and served to keep each other in CHECK......now look at what exists.   An unstable Iraq with Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives gone, a Iran unchecked by a local immediate power to its west (and of course there is still a chorus of people who are NOT Israeli NOW arguing that we need to "go after Iran!!")      It never ends........this is not checkers, its CHESS (with elements of other more serious and deadly games), where you absolutely MUST think not one, or two, or even 5 moves ahead, but 10 or 15 moves ahead AT A MINIMUM.     And even then you might get it wrong.......the very fact that there is NO way to predict the future means you MUST be all the more cautious and concerned about using force, because once you do, you cannot "UNDO IT".      On the other hand (just so everyone knows I am not a pacifist or a "liberal") the Bush Administration in 2003 totally screwed the pooch when they used FAR TOO LESS force than they should have when they toppled Saddam.    And, the first instance where the USA "prematurely" pulled out of Iraq happened on "w"'s watch when that absurd moment came in early summer 2003 (several months after the MArch 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam) when President Bush landed on a carrier off the san diego shore and yelled "MISSION accomplished", and forces started to be withdrawn and recalled......shortly after that, Al Qaeda in Iraq was born, Remnants of Saddam's forces seeing the USA prematurely declaring "all is well" started their insurgency, and about a dozen other groups with their own agenda's also started acting out when they perceived an initial US scaling down.....basically, with the removal of Saddam from power, the "glue" that had held Iraq together for 40 years and prevented civil war was GONE and voila!