E6Hotel

"Brute" Krulak (the prior Commandant's dad" said it best: Â "The American people don't need a Marine Corps, but they want one." Â The amphibious assault capability is still what many people see as our turf, but to anyone who wasn't paying attention, Baghdad is a considerable distance from saltwater. Â The reach will only get deeper when the Osprey and the AAAV come online. I can't shake the image of a hydroplaning AMTRAC towing water-skiing jarheads. "Charlie don't surf!" Â Semper Fi

*cracks knuckles over keyboard in delicious anticipation* Â A Marine PFT consists of deadhang pullups, crunches, and a three-mile run. Â While it's true we don't do sit-ups anymore (too many Marines were injuring their necks by pulling on the backs of their heads), the number of repetitions went from 80 sit-ups in two minutes to 100 crunches for a perfect score. Â It's easy to be hard, it's hard to be smart. Does the Army still run two miles, or have you guys started using the Air Force's stationary bicycles? Â Allow me to bid you an early welcome to Club Goofy. Â If the Army's cammies are similar to ours you'll soon find they're the best field uniforms you've ever used. Yeah, but you can't do close-order drill with an M4. Â Seriously though, the A2 never caused me problems in MOUT. Â In a CQB environment I'd rather have the M4. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with a MEU(SOC)'s capabilities. Â No black berets involved. Â Â Â Or is it the beginning? Â 'Bout time we got some SOCOM $$$. Semper Fi

Could you please re-phrase that? *shivers* Semper Fi

Granted, there's no excuse for improper weapon maintenance. Â HOWEVER: GPS does diddly-squat against bad or missing information. NY Times "Every Marine is a Rifleman" -- all Marines believe this, except of course, for the actual Riflemen. Â Semper Fi

Again, I don't concur with this interpretation. Â WMD's were given as a justification and the search for WMD's continues. There's a world of difference in receiving an order you don't agree with and receiving an illegal order. Â Illegal orders, by definition, shouldn't be obeyed. Â Our promotion warrants specifically require obedience to orders given by "Superiors acting according to the rules and articles governing the discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States of America." Â The question coming any second now by way of Sweden will be "But how do you identify an illegal order?" The best answer I can give is that I'm 99% confident my superiors won't order me to do anything that I consider immoral. Â The remaining 1% depends on my ability to recognize any immoral orders and use moral courage to refuse them. Semper Fi

For a few more months, yes. I'd prefer that you specify which statements you're curious about, but I assure you that what I write reflects my beliefs. Â Of course, if my beliefs were not similar to Marine Corps ideals, I'd have gone to work for Deloitte & Touche or, heaven forbid, Arthur Anderson. Â (Am I bull-headed because I'm a Marine, or am I a Marine because I'm bull-headed? Â A question for the ages.) Obviously, I don't have an anti-war stance. Â I don't have a pro-war stance, either. Â I'm situationally dependent. Â Based on the ideas important to me (fighting oppression, peaceful coexistence between humans and mutants, windmill-tilting in general) I'm satisfied that our causes are usually just. Â The execution's never perfect, but then again, nothing's ever perfect. Â Â Semper Fi

Possibly, though I'd say interpreting it as condoning the Kuwait invasion was an even bigger mistake. Â In any case it's not the same thing as a green light. Who's "you," the U.S.? Â Saddam had five and a half months after invading to back down. Â In that timespan the United Nations passed resolutions, called for an Iraqi withdrawal, and imposed an embargo -- lesser means clearly didn't work. I think I see the source of confusion. Â When I said I should have said something like "For the sake of my question I'm looking at this war as an isolated case." Â My intention was to narrow the scope down to a simple yes/no question as to whether or not Iraq was better off with Saddam, independent of any other factors. Â Sorry for garbling the question. "War is how Americans learn geography" has a ring of truth to it. Â In 1990 Iraqis were the guys who had been fighting the Iranians for a decade. Â You can't really be surprised that between these two countries at that time we considered the Iraqis to be "the good guys." Â Semper Fi

The entire argument about Glaspie greenlighting the Kuwait invasion (and yes, I've heard it many times before) hinges on this sentence: Â That can be interpreted many ways -- "We don't care if you invade Kuwait" might be one, but "We don't care if you think you're entitled to annex Kuwait" might be another. Â Coming after this statement regarding Iraqi troops massing at the Kuwait border I fail to see how this would be considered as a green light. In any case, I think Desert Storm provided sufficient evidence that we did not approve of Saddam's action. Â Semper Fi

Perhaps most Americans also think it's a question of the greater good being more important. Â I'm not qualified to say. Â Â Is this another theoretical vote in favor of returning Saddam to power? "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Â Yes, but again we're no longer dealing with attempted genocide, mass graves, building palaces with embezzled humanitarian assistance, etc. Â There are degrees of bad, and the current situation will improve. Fair enough. Exactly how am I refusing to comment? Â I just don't agree that what's been said constitutes lying. Â You say they're lying about WMD's being an issue when they're not, I provide sources showing that while they are indeed hedging their bets (that's a surprise), they haven't said WMD's are no longer an issue. Semper Fi

I'm looking at this war as an isolated case. Â All other things being equal, do you think it would have been better for Saddam to stay in power? Yes. Â If Saddam thought the U.S. was giving him a green light to invade Kuwait, he was rather obviously mistaken. Â He also had a large window of opportunity he could have used to retreat before the Storm began. Semper Fi

Infuriating, isn't it? Â Â Â I have yet to see where Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al have said that WMD's "aren't really an issue". Â Washington Post BBC again Hmmm... "other factor he describes as 'huge'..." Â Does this mean that Wolfowitz still considers WMD's as a "huge" factor? Honestly, I don't think many people other than the Republicans in Congress cared very much about Clinton getting his winky wet. Let me pose a question: Â Do you consider the war morally justified? Â I'm not talking about "legal in the UN's eyes," or some other technicality. Â Knowing what we do about his regime, if you could undo the invasion and return Saddam to power, would you? I'm mildly curious. EDIT: Â That question applies to the other guys, too. Â I'd be interested to hear from those who think sticking with Saddam was Iraq's better option. Â Â Semper Fi

Yes, because until the President said that Saddam Hussein was "very bad" I had no opinion of my own on the matter. Â Despite what many people here think about Americans in general, the American military, and specifically the USMC, I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. Â In this instance I reached the conclusion that removing Saddam, for whatever reason was more "moral" than allowing him to continue to run Iraq. Â Your ideas of American patriotism don't really factor too heavily into my thought processes, so please spare me the Nazi rhetoric, 'cause it doesn't wash. Â I'm more of an Uncle Ben "with great power yadda yadda yadda" type. Â "Right now" some things are worse but I believe they're getting better. Â On the other hand, the torture chambers, mass graves, imprisoned children, etc. are in the past. Â Call me an optimist, but that's an improvement in my opinion. Semper Fi

You'll have to find someone else to speak for all Americans. Â Can't help you there. It seems to me that you're confusing morality with legality. Â And legality without enforcement is worthless. Â What's "moral" about leaving Saddam in power? Semper Fi

Not particularly. Â Once again, these are possible, not confirmed, discrepancies. Â The WMD search is not over. Â If you want to use this controversy to back up what you already believe that's fine with me. Â Â Again, even if no WMD's are found I personally have absolutely no problem with the outcome of the war. Â Sorry if it sounds harsh, but IMO the "greater good" (yes, this is a personal call) achieved by taking Saddam out outweighs the negatives. I should stress that my opinion above depends on us leaving the Iraqis with a better future than they would have had with Saddam. Â If this is handled like post WWII Germany or Japan, great. Â If it resembles 1950's Iran... Semper Fi

From your link: I thought this pretty much said it all: You did ask for my opinion. Semper Fi

Your question assumes that WMD's will not be found. Â As I stated earlier, I am not prepared to make that assumption. Then again, maybe we needed oil from somewhere to pump through that Unocal pipeline we invaded Afghanistan for. EDIT: Â WTF are you doing linking Fox News? Â Semper Fi

Assuming for the sake of argument that no WMD's are found (which I am NOT prepared to do at this time): My conclusion would be that the primary objective was to remove Saddam from power. Â The threat from WMD's was presented in an attempt to act within the UN's framework, but when that didn't work it was back to goal #1. I'm not thrilled that we've broken our streak of never throwing the first punch, but I can't say I'm too heartbroken over the end result. Â Realpolitik, ends justifying the means, whatever -- destroying a tyrannical regime is an inherently "good" act, unless of course it's replaced with something worse. Â Whether that will be the case remains to be seen. Semper Fi

It seems fairly linear to me. Â The war was not intended to remove the no-fly zones; it was to remove the regime necessitating them. Â Cancelling the overwatch and removing the troops is a result. AQ has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine situation either, but that doesn't stop OBL from trying to hijack it for his purposes. Â Even after Arafat himself tells him to knock it off. I hope they kept the receipt. Â Semper Fi

How do you reach that conclusion? Â Â Actually, our "move" was to attack AQ's base of operations in Afghanistan. Â A couple of problems with your logic: 1) Â Granted that all Americans are retarded, but do you think we'd try to appease AQ by invading another Islamic country so that we'd have somewhere to place troops other than SA? 2) Â If our military presence in SA is the root cause behind AQ's terrorism, as so often stated by OBL, don't you think someone should let the AQ cells in Riyahd and Morocco know that our troops are being moved? Â Apparently they didn't get the message. Semper Fi

I read a geo-political analysis a long time ago that convinced me of how important bases and basing rights are to the US strategy for global domination (of course there is such a thing). Still it seems incredible that they might have to gone to war over it (or at least with it as a major reason) Guys, you're putting too much spin on this one. Â Here's what Wolfowitz said in the link Denoir provided: Â Â Basing troops in Iraq isn't mentioned. Â As stated at the time of the decision to pull troops out of Saudi*, eliminating Saddam's regime eliminated the need to enforce no-fly zones, which eliminated the need to have U.S. troops based in Saudi. The move sure as hell isn't intended as "appeasement" for AQ. *Normally I would provide a link backing this up. Â Unfortunately, I made the mistake of lurking on www.iraqwar.ru a few days ago, which temporarily dropped my higher brain functions below the minimum threshhold needed to Google successfully. Â <wipes drool off keyboard> Â Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ 27 April 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do any of you feel suspicious that electricity and especially phone communications are due to be restored in Baghdad only in 4-6 months? Â <span id='postcolor'> Dare I ask who said it will take 4-6 months? Â Morbid curiosity compels me. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 24 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, she's getting married to a pretty great guy next May. <span id='postcolor'> That's for the best, the current Mrs. E6Hotel probably wouldn't approve of my designs anyway. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 24 2003,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My Sis<span id='postcolor'> <checks teeth for food particles and smooths hair> How YOU doin'? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 21 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One question... Â Isnt fast roping usually done from 30-40 feet above the deck? Â If so why was the helo so low on it's approach?<span id='postcolor'> No idea. Â When we did maritime interdictions we never got that close to the deck. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 21 2003,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did anyone get hurt in that accident? I hope not, it seemed he misjudged but the pilot should have immediately increased power and collective, to clear the ship and do damage assesment, trying to cling on by your front wheels ain't that smart.<span id='postcolor'> About half a dozen Force Recon Marines and their Corpsman died. The pilot wasn't trying to land; he snagged a wheel on the ship's railing while trying to position for a fast-rope insertion. Edit: Link Semper Fi