E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok Colin Powell made some interesting points about Iraq counteracting the UN Inspector.<span id='postcolor'> A bit of an understatement, I'd say. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The rest was just crap becoming more laughable each minute. Please, showing us cartoons of how assumed mobile labs might look like?<span id='postcolor'> They were visual aids based on information provided by Iraqi defectors. Â I don't think they were intended to serve as any sort of "evidence." </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, it was an interesting presentation but based 90% on speculation. His pattern was to produce some trivial evidence and then deduce an implausible grand theory from it.<span id='postcolor'> Do you seriously consider satellite photos of material being removed from numerous chemical weapons storage facilities "trivial"? Â How about these sites being bulldozed to remove surface contamination? Â Iraqi officers "evacuating" the weapons before the inspectors arrive? Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Powell should have stuck to his primary point: that Iraq is lying about things which is technically a material breach of the resolution.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I agree with you there. Â The only weak part in the presentation was the reliance on information provided "by our sources." Â Then again, did anyone seriously expect Powell to say "According to information provided by Major XXX currently serving with the Republican Guard..."? At this point, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Iraq still has chemical weapons and is not actively screwing with the UN inspectors is delusional. Â The remaining questions are: 1) Â Is this a material breach of 1441 (if this really remains a question in anyone's mind), and 2) Â What exactly did the UN mean by "serious consequences"? Â Wait, I know! Â We'll draft a resolution! Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They voted no, but they didn't use their veto. UN Charter chapter V article 27 gives the permanent members of the security council right to block *any* decision that the UN makes. <snip> What part of my post was so difficult to understand? The US stood by as well and let Lybia get elected. They could have stopped it any time. The role of the US is in this case identical to the one of Europe. USA chose to stand aside and let Libya become the chair.<span id='postcolor'> It’s not hard to understand.  It is, however, open to interpretation. Article 25 states that members of the UN “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.†  So under the present Charter, what is the Security Council’s responsibility? According to Article 24, it’s the “maintenance of international peace and security.† Any P5 country can veto any Security Council decision -- in other words, the Security Council has practically infinite power over a finite area.  As evidence of the intended subordinate relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, I submit the following: Article 10, which states that “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter (e.g., the Security Council – E6);†Paragraph 1 of Article 12, which states that the General Assembly shall not make recommendations while the Security Council is exercising its functions as assigned in the charter unless requested by the Council; and  Paragraph 2 of Article 18, which outlines the election of Security Council members by the General Assembly. Now, although Libya’s election is disgusting, it’s clearly a procedural matter and not a threat to international peace and security.  So how are procedural matters handled? Assuming that it WAS under the Security Council’s jurisdiction, which it wasn’t, paragraph 2 of Article 27 states that “Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.† As I’m sure you’re aware, paragraph 3 states that concurring votes from P5 nations are required for decisions on all other matters. Otherwise, we’re back to Article 18 again, which states that each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote, and that decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.  Veto power is not mentioned in Chapter 4. Anyone who has even a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows that the U.S. isn’t afraid to whip out the Security Council veto, so why would we have gone to the trouble of calling for a vote (remember, for the first time since 1946) if we could have vetoed Libya in the first place? UN Charter Holy Jeebus, I feel like I just gave birth… to a lawyer. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PiNs_Da_Smoka @ Jan. 28 2003,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i heard some talk of specialized vehicles for combat engineers, but i didn't get too far into it, going back to discuss a few things with my recruiter in a few days, then i'll know the exact specifics.<span id='postcolor'> Bulldozers. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US could have vetoed him out, but didn't. So I hardly see how that would give the US a higher moral ground to discuss this issue from.<span id='postcolor'> It doesn't work that way, chief. Libya Wins Leadership of Rights Panel Despite U.S. Opposition By BARRY JAMES, International Herald Tribune PARIS, Jan. 20 — The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, meeting in Geneva, elected Libya to its chairmanship today after the United States demanded and lost a vote. The United States insisted on a vote, which was the first since the commission was formed in 1946. The chairmanship is usually decided by consensus. It was apparently a move to embarrass Libya's supporters. But 33 countries voted for Libya. Only three — the United States, Canada and, reports said, Guatemala — voted no. Seventeen countries abstained, including seven members of the European Union. Diplomats said they did not want to offend African nations, whose turn it is under a rotating system to select the new leader. The vote means Libya will preside over the meeting, from March 17 to April 25, at which the commission will survey the human rights situation around the world. Libya has been accused of abducting and torturing opponents of its government. It has openly supported violent organizations like the Irish Republican Army, and it is held responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, has assiduously courted African nations with cash and political influence. He was a driving force behind the formation of the new African Union, even paying off some of the debts of the old Organization of African Unity, its predecessor. Libya, still not fully free from United Nations penalties that were imposed because of the Lockerbie bombing, was the only country nominated by the African bloc. The United States insisted on a vote, the State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said, because Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded. The United States has just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 in a secret vote of member countries. The American ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Kevin Moley, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome. "A country with this record does not merit a leadership role," he said. Human rights advocates said the election of a country that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969 put the credibility of the rights panel at stake. Earlier, in a statement, Human Rights Watch said Libya's rights record over three decades had been "appalling." Amnesty International also has expressed concern that about 150 opponents of the government who are facing trial in Libya later this month will not receive a fair hearing. The Libyan representative to the Human Rights Commission, Najat al-Hajjaji, said in a speech after her election that she would rely on the body's collective wisdom and that she would avoid "as far as possible" making decisions on a personal basis. NY Times Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,2304)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, it would be a shame for the UN to lose credibility. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 26 2003,21:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unless the plane travels near the speed of light <span id='postcolor'> My question is, if the plane is traveling at the speed of light, what happens when the pilot turns on the headlights? Semper Fi

Get a commission and apply for aviation. You're gonna need perfect uncorrected eyesight, though. Only da grunts go to SOI. All other MOS's attend Marine Combat Training (MCT). MCT is physically located at the east & west coast SOI's, so technically all Marines "go to" SOI, but the training programs are vastly different for the 03's and the other MOS's. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 26 2003,04:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Better yet, if I was a young Yank, I would go through university and become an Army pilot. Apaches are cool. <span id='postcolor'> Army helo pilots start out as WO's. Don't even need a degree. Semper Fi

One good thing about the Corps is that it takes great pride in having the highest percentage of Mustangs in the services. Â I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but there are several programs for commissioning enlisted Marines (you'd need to talk to an Officer Selection Office). Â They all involve submitting application packages to the appropriate selection boards that convene once a year. -- OCC (Officer Candidate Class) is for enlisted Marines that already have degrees. Â If chosen, the Marine goes to OCS for 10 weeks. -- MECEP (Meritorious Enlisted Commissioning E??? Program) is designed to prepare selected Marines for college. Â If selected, a Marine attends prep courses and is sent to school for 4 years. Â In addition to receiving a free ride, the Marine is considered on active duty and is eligible for promotions. Â Â -- BOOST (Broadened Opportunities for Officer Selection T???) is similar to MECEP, but is intended to help Marines w/o degrees who, due to lack of opportunities, could not attend college. A few other things to keep in mind: -- You don't have to be an NCO to apply. Â Enlisted Marines must be younger than 30 at the time of commissioning. Â (This doesn't apply to Limited Duty Officers, and there are probably waivers for exceptional candidates.) -- It doesn't matter which route you go, ALL Marine officers (even Annapolis grads) go to OCS and TBS at Quantico. If you go this route, part of the application process will be a board of officers in your unit's command. Â One will ask why you want to be an officer of Marines. Â The response they are looking for is not "challenge" or "different job" or "better pay." Â The correct answer is "To lead Marines, Sir." EDIT: Â I tried posting this last night in response to Tex's question, but I couldn't "find the server." Â Maybe this was the reason? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 25 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He isn't enthusiastic at all about me enlisting, but I think he understands my reasoning.<span id='postcolor'> Have you considered going to the Dark Side? Â If you're a a college freshman or sophomore and get accepted, you'd go to OCS for 5 weeks at a time for 2 consecutive summers. Â After completing the 10 weeks OCS and graduating, you'd be commissioned and go to The Basic School for 6 months. Not that there's anything wrong with the enlisted side of the house. Semper Fi

Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Teams. Â Also sarcastically referred to by members as: -- Fake-Ass SEAL Team -- Field-day And Some Training -- Field-day Antibacterial Scrub Team FAST More FAST Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 25 2003,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heh. I cant wait for a Marine to see this.<span id='postcolor'> J/K. Â It's a common misperception, but we're a separate branch. Â The Commandant's on the Joint Chiefs and everything! Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 24 2003,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">french foreign legion never runs away<span id='postcolor'> Well, it is the FOREIGN legion. Sorry, couldn't resist. Semper Fi

The Army would be more beneficial from a materialistic standpoint. Â -- Bigger signing bonuses and more money for college. Â -- Easier training standards (for basic infantrymen, anyway -- the Rangers, on the other hand, are hard core). -- Usually has newer, more expensive "toys." -- More emphasis on "quality of life," e.g. newer barracks, etc. On the other hand, the USMC places emphasis on intangibles. Â "Honor, courage, committment," etc. Â That's why I chose USMC PFC chevrons over Army butterbars after college. Warin: Â No more security forces aboard the carriers. Â The "dets" (security force detachments) were deactivated a few years back and used to help form 2nd FAST Company. Â On a side note, I would suggest that anyone going into the Corps as a grunt consider Security Forces and the FAST Companies in particular. Â More trigger time and more interesting toys than the average grunt gets to see. EDIT: Â Cloney, dude: Â You've GOT to take that "pizza box" out of your sig. Â Can't you find a pic of the Expert badge? Semper Fi

The basic USMC rifle qualification course (known distance, or “KDâ€) has 5 stages of fire: -- 200 yard slow fire: 5 rounds sitting, 5 rounds kneeling, 5 rounds offhand (standing) in 15 minutes. The stationary silhouette target approximates a human head and shoulders (i.e., a prone enemy). 1 point for hitting black, 2 points for hitting a 12†circle in the center of the target. -- 200 yard rapid fire: Moving from standing to kneeling, 10 rounds from 2 magazines in 70 seconds. Same target, each hit = 1 point (no 2 point hits). -- 300 yard slow fire: 5 rounds kneeling in 5 minutes. Same target; each hit = 1 point. -- 300 yard rapid fire: Moving from standing to prone, 10 rounds from 2 magazines in 60 seconds. Same target; each hit = 1 point. -- 500 yard slow fire: 10 rounds prone in 10 minutes. Target approximates a human head and torso; each hit = 1 point. Hasty slings are used in all stages except the 500 yard line, where loop slings are used. The final day of qual week includes field firing, with moving targets, multiple targets, quick reaction drills, gas masks, etc. <25 points = unqualified 25-34 = Marksman (lowest rating, characterized by bullseye shooting badge known as the “pizza boxâ€) 35-39 = Sharpshooter 40-65 (max score) = Expert No one is shooting at you on the KD. The stress level probably depends more on the shooter’s confidence level than anything else (high score = increased chance of promotion, unqualified or “unk†= bad ju-ju.) We do have indoor simulators but they’re used mainly for diagnosing problems with shooter technique. They’re not involved in qualifying. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 22 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">500m with an iron sight? That would be a waste of ammunition, aside from giving youself away without laying effective fire down.<span id='postcolor'> I would like to reassure any terrorists out there that you are indeed safe from Marines with M16's 500 meters away. Â Please feel free to approach us at your leisure. Heh. Semper Fi

There is a (credible) rumor floating around that the A4 was selected because the M4 can't be used for close-order drill. Â Not sure why an M4 would have higher malfunction rates than the A4 when the internal mechanisms are the same. Â Then again, "armorer" is not on my list of MOS's. It should also be noted that the USMC units tasked w/ CQB missions are already equipped with the M4. Semper Fi

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' alive, stayin' alive... Ah, never mind. Semper Fi

From my promotion warrant to Staff Sergeant: "To all who shall see these presents...And I do strictly charge and require all personnel of lesser grade to render obedience to appropriate orders.  And this appointee is to observe and follow such orders and directions as may be given from time to time by superiors acting according to the rules and articles governing the discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States of America." From my copy of the Staff Noncommissioned Officer's Creed: "I am a staff noncommissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps...unflinching in the execution of lawful orders, and unswerving in my dedication to the most complete success of my assigned mission." Take if for what it's worth. Why are some people here are under the impression that U.S. servicemen convicted of crimes are given "slaps on the wrist" when convicted?  Do you have specific examples, or are you assuming?  The two Marines and one sailor who raped an Okinawan girl back in '95 will spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth, and if you ask me they got off lightly.  There was an uproar in South Korea when G.I.'s in an APC killed two girls and were recently acquitted by a U.S. military court, but is it conceivable that just maybe, they weren't at fault? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Dec. 18 2002,0009)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned the fiction of Stephen Hunter yet. I've read a number of his books, including "Point of Impact", "Dirty White Boys", and "Black Light", which are interconnected through the "Bob the Nailer" character. Excellent writing, and great attention to detail. Two thumbs up!<span id='postcolor'> "Nobody?" Â Are you trying to damage my fragile self-esteem? Â Heh. Â "Point of Impact" is up there with "The Cardinal of the Kremlin" and "Red Dragon" as favorite reads, IMO. Â Awesome book. Have you read "Hot Springs" yet? Â There's an encounter between Earl Swagger and "Bugsy" Siegel that is classic. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 16 2002,04:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I only expect more injustice.<span id='postcolor'> You mean like when Fidel expropriated* all American businesses without compensation in 1960? Â A few months before we cut diplomatic ties, too. Don't even get me started on the missiles thing. And the released prisoners Castro sent us, thanks a bunch. Â Resulted in one of my favorite movies. Â ("First you get the money...") Â If the Cubans are happy under Castro, more power to 'em. Â I would hope we can agree that neither side in the continuing Cuba/U.S. debacle is blameless. *Stole is such a harsh word. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Dec. 15 2002,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Though, the one about the Sherman Tank commander that sees the ghost of the Civil War general and talks to him was pretty good too!<span id='postcolor'> "The Haunted Tank!" Â As one of the resident nitpickers around here, I have to point out that it was a Stuart, haunted by (no surprise) JEB Stuart. Â Ahhh, memories... They're fictional, and they're not all war novels, but I'm partial to Stephen Hunter's "Bob the Nailer" series. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TaNK_Em @ Dec. 15 2002,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: Why would the Marines come in when the nuke went off to save the president wouldn’t it be like the National Guard or Army?<span id='postcolor'> Marines are tasked with providing security at Camp David and in D.C.  More than likely response in a similar situation would be infantry from Camp David Security Forces with helo support from HMX-1 (the "Marine One" squadron). SOAF was in production long before 9/11.  And other than the switch to neo-nazis (ironically, the producers didn't want to be accused of perpetuating the "militant islamic terrorist" stereotype), I thought it was a pretty good flick.  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 15 2002,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The trouble spot in the book is not Chechnya either, It's about Israel vs. Palestinians in the beginning, and includes a very clever plan by Jack Ryan to bring peace to the region... Does anyone else remember this?  I'm surprised that it has'nt been brought up in the Mid East thread.<span id='postcolor'> Well, the non-violent resistance by the Palestinians (in the book, obviously) as a way to resolve the conflict has been mentioned.  Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,07:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey I agree, but you know it was the cause....so....you know it has caused suffering for people across the world before, <snip> so do you truly want to fix it the problem? Â You want to prevent terrorism? Start there, with your foreign policy. Try to be more considerate of countries who's government your government dosen't happen to find convenient.<span id='postcolor'> I don't think I'm getting my point across. Â Our physical presence in the Middle East has in fact prevented suffering. Â (At least from the Kuwaiti standpoint -- I'm sure the Iraqis disagree, but there's a price to be paid for aggression.) Â AQ does not attack us because we oppress people, or because of our screw-ups in South America. Â They attack us because under their twisted perversion of Islam, our MERE PRESENCE is an affront. Â We're "infidels," so we're fair game. Â This is not a "cause" and it is not a "reason." Â It is an excuse, and it is NOT based on politics. With fanatics like AQ, there is NOTHING we can do that will prevent their attack attempts. Â Why? Â Because to their way of thinking, the problem is not our political viewpoint, or our history of dealing with other countries. Â The problem, quite simply, is THAT WE EXIST. Buenos noches, y Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that being from Cuba and seeing how nasty US foreign policy can get, I can understand why they find your military presence there offensive. Make no mistake, the WTC attacks sickened me, but US foreign policy is simply trampling on too many people.<span id='postcolor'> I've already conceded that our foreign policy is the "cause" of the WTC and other attacks.  My point is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE cause. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forgive me for not believing the US cares all that much about stability in Afghanistan. I remember how much it cared about stability once the Soviets moved out. All the help the Afghans were getting up to that point just stopped. "Stability" means simply enough control of the country to make sure another movement which oposes the US does not flourish.<span id='postcolor'> "Stability" means that one half of a country is not trying to kill the other half.  It means that mothers and babies don't routinely die during childbirth.  It means children can walk around without getting their legs blown off by landmines.  Etc., etc.  Being a closet optimist, I hope we've learned a lesson from ignoring Afghanistan the first time.  I can't blame you for being skeptical, but I can give you some fairly convincing examples of how we have helped former enemies given the opportunity. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It does if the US foreign policy over there is anything like it was/is in South America.<span id='postcolor'> Not even close. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 14 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell you what, I'll come over to your house packing all sorts of weapons and say "I'm gonna live in that room and I'll pay you $20 a year in rent. <span id='postcolor'> Cash?  DEAL!  Basic cable, and you get one shelf in the refrigerator.  No loud music. Semper Fi  Â