# Video From The Daily Show, Marines In Berkeley



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 15, 2008)

Great video from the Daily show. A must see! I have to say, that so far this is my best example of how Liberalism is a mental disorder.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 15, 2008)

Hahahahahaha!!!  
I will give you reputation for this one!


----------



## The Master (Mar 15, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Great video from the Daily show. A must see! I have to say, that so far this is my best example of how Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley


A video from a comedy "news" program that uses hired actors to play parts in fabricated distortions for humour purposes is your best example? This tells me all I need to know concerning you and your purpose.

This section of this Internet forum is intended for serious discussion, with real facts, real evidence and their ilk.  You appear to have made a posting error when your "example" was best directed at the Humour section.

If this was however, as I fear, an attempt to use this "comedy" as an serious argument, then I would suggest you contact this person, as his views and yours will no doubt align quite well, and you will find him just as credible as comedian John Stewart.

Concerning the real issue, The Marines have a right to be there to recruit. The town however is under no obligation to welcome them. Thy also have the right and the moral responsibility to restrict said recruiting so that the targets of recruitment can make a fair and informed decision. This is especially important since their decision may require them to die in their near future. Joining any military branch, but especially one with  such a history as the US Marine Corp, is not a decision to be taken lightly. Marines should be the best of the best, and not art house rejects.

Semper Fi.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2008)

There are some liberals who are egg on the face of the entire idea of social fairness.  Just like there are some conservatives who are a pox on the GOP.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 15, 2008)

Humor as political commentary has a long tradition. I can see the point.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 15, 2008)

The Master said:


> A video from a comedy "news" program that uses hired actors to play parts in fabricated distortions for humour purposes is your best example? This tells me all I need to know concerning you and your purpose.
> 
> This section of this Internet forum is intended for serious discussion, with real facts, real evidence and their ilk.  You appear to have made a posting error when your "example" was best directed at the Humor section.
> 
> ...



The hired actor is a former MARINE. And although this was done in humor it in know way belittles the facts. 
Regarding my "purpose" I don't need  pseudo intellectuals to try and figure out my "Purpose"
The city does not have a right to restrict recruitment! As long as said city accepts federal tax dollars they have no right to deny recruitment centers, if they did have the right the Marines would not be there any longer and I do believe they are still there in the cess pool called Berkeley.
As a U.S. Navy vet that worked with many Marines, and having a son that is a U.S. Marine Recruiter i can tell you first hand that they ARE the best of the best.
Semper Fi & Anchors Away.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

The Master said:


> Marines should be the best of the best, and not art house rejects.


 
I'm tempted to steal this for my sig, but I would also like to point out that just because a vocal majority of the city fit this category doesn't mean that there aren't good Marines to be found in Berkeley.  The city needs to quit hindering the Corps' mission, or at least admit that "tolerance" isn't really their thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2008)

Well if people want to be marines I'm sure they'll find a way to be whether there's a recruiting office in their town or not. Not going to be marine material if they can't find a way are they?
I would however point out that US Marines while being very good aren't maybe the best of the best worldwide. Best in America yes but not in the world. That would have to be the Royal Marine Commandos and especially the Special Boat Squadron. 
>sits back waiting for howls of disagreement rofl<  :wink2:


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2008)

No disagreement from me ... looks at the country I'm from ... Ohhh ... my opinions couldn't be coloured by that could they? .

*Navyvet*, you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else but you're starting to step a bit too close to the line when it comes to how you make your points.  It's fine to disagree and it's fine to agree to disagree; some views will never meld.

What is not fine is to indulge in personally directed insulting comments, even ones you might not think are all that offensive e.g.:

*Regarding my "purpose" I don't need pseudo intellectuals to try and figure out my "Purpose"*

If directed at another member of these boards then that is not acceptable.

Also, we all know your views by now, there is no need to trot out your 'Liberalism is a disease' catchphrase every post.  Honestly, if it does anything other than get peoples backs up, such rhetoric harms your case rather than helps it.

Trying to play a little nicer and building an argument for your views would be much more condusive to a happy stay here at MT.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

I have to agree with Sukerkin.  As a former Marine, I appreciate your passion, navyvet.  But right now you're at ten;  we need you at about a seven.  :asian:


----------



## Marginal (Mar 15, 2008)

Makes one wonder just what Code Pink is trying to accomplish aside from being hated equally by either side of the political spectrum.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 15, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> That would have to be the Royal Marine Commandos and especially the Special Boat Squadron.
> >sits back waiting for howls of disagreement rofl<  :wink2:



You are talking about the British SAS -- The Regiment at Hereford, right???

I have a friend who is a US Marine right now -- he is on his freaking fourth tour now.  I was joking once -- I said that the US Army Rangers is what we have here that is like the Regiment. He threw a fit a little -- he got a little exited about that, and then He said that the SAS is the ONLY guys that he saw in the field over there that he would have no problem with them having his back -- no joke -- and this guy has busted in rooms and all of that.

He says that they are everything that is said about them -- the original commandos, no joking!!!

Now, this movie may have been better placed in the comedy thread, that's not for me to say, but I swear to you all, I almost passed out from laughing so hard when they showed those people dressed up silly outside the office and then in the window you can see those guys doing pull ups and such -- its just too much.   Hahahahaha   I can see it now, if one of those guys walked outside and hit one of those people  -- BAM!  Martial arts or no martial arts, it would probably be a knockout!  Hahahaha!!!


My friend who is a US Marine advised me to join the BJJ school here to be "a bully" -- take the fight TO the freaking opponent, that school instills the meanness to the students -- but I am too old for that!  He told me that he sometimes is sick and wants to throw up and have a headache when he walks out -- if it has that affect on him, it would most likely KILL me!!!

Hahahahahahaha!!!  If anyone thinks that the youth of this country is of no value, they have not met my friend, thats all that I can say!!!





Robert


----------



## The Master (Mar 15, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> The hired actor is a former MARINE. And although this was done in humor it in know way belittles the facts.
> Regarding my "purpose" I don't need pseudo intellectuals to try and figure out my "Purpose"
> The city does not have a right to restrict recruitment! As long as said city accepts federal tax dollars they have no right to deny recruitment centers, if they did have the right the Marines would not be there any longer and I do believe they are still there in the cess pool called Berkeley.
> As a U.S. Navy vet that worked with many Marines, and having a son that is a U.S. Marine Recruiter i can tell you first hand that they ARE the best of the best.
> Semper Fi & Anchors Away.


 
"pseudo intellectuals". Very nice. There is, I must say, nothing "pseudo" about my intellect. But then, I didn't relax on a ship while the real men were out actually fighting either.

Some of us have actually read the Constitution and other government documents and understand things. Others argue from emotion and ignorance. I believe you to be in the later group guppy.

As I said, but you were unable to understand: The Marines have a right to be there. The city has the right to not like it and say so. I support the military yet I do not want their recruiters setting up shop in my son's high school.  It is a simple concept, one that a true Defender of the Constitution would understand.

To be honest, debating you is a waste of time. A mind, such as yours, such as it is, is set in its limited way, and not worth the effort it would take to guide to enlightenment. Good day sir. I shant view your ignorant blather further.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2008)

If I weren't a board admin I would probably say something to *navyvetcv60* like, "Did you come here to bully everyone around and insult everyone, because you're not really representing your son's efforts nor your country very well, ya salty bastard! If you hate all of us here, let me show you the door."

But ... I'm on the admin team and ... can't say things like that.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 15, 2008)

Attention all dudes.  If you want to kiss and/or get laid by some hot hippie chicks, pretend to be a potential recruit for the marines.  Yeah, I know, it's not ideal because code pink is "doin it" for the cause, but one might as well reap the benefits while it lasts.  

This message is brought to you by Enron...energy for the future and beyond!


----------



## little_miss_fracus (Mar 15, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> If I weren't a board admin I would probably say something to *navyvetcv60* like, "Did you come here to bully everyone around and insult everyone, because you're not really representing your son's efforts nor your country very well, ya salty bastard! If you hate all of us here, let me show you the door."
> 
> But ... I'm on the admin team and ... can't say things like that.  :uhyeah:



HA HA HA

Would you like for me to say it for you?



What is that guy's problem, anyway?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> You are talking about the British SAS -- The Regiment at Hereford, right???


 
Not quite, Rob.  They're not as 'famous' as the SAS because they're Navy and thus less involved with the sort of operations that catch the media limelight.  The SBS are just as good and do the same sort of operations but do it either underwater or from the water.

*http://www.specialboatservice.co.uk/*


----------



## Ray (Mar 15, 2008)

The Master said:


> Concerning the real issue, The Marines have a right to be there to recruit. The town however is under no obligation to welcome them. Thy also have the right and the moral responsibility to restrict said recruiting so that the targets of recruitment can make a fair and informed decision.


I missed the "real issue:" Restrict the recruiting (and the information that accompanies it) so that those who oppose recruiting can freely dispense their information.  In this way, people will be able to make an "informed" decision.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> What is that guy's problem, anyway?


 
The jury is out at present.  

Sometimes a person can come on like a train because it's the way they've handled problems before and it's always worked (in the real world at least).  That kind of mistaken approach to internet life can be corrected if it is realised that belligerence and aggressive arguing wins no victories on the Web.

Sometimes a person is just genuinely unpleasant.  There's not a lot you can do about that other than incentivise the requirement to be polite.  By this I mean that the Moderators of a site have the ability to remove a members access either temporarily or permanently if they do not follow the codes that everyone agreed to when they signed up.

Sometimes a person is just a Troll, who gets their Net pleasure from winding everyone up and causing general mischief.  The cure for that is as above but also it is helpful not to rise to the bait i.e. Do Not Feed The Trolls .  Harder to do than to say if someone punches our particular buttons tho', which is how Trolls manage to maintain an existence.


----------



## Carol (Mar 15, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> HA HA HA
> 
> Would you like for me to say it for you?
> 
> ...





Keep in mind that not everybody is who they say they are on the internet.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 15, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Attention all dudes.  If you want to kiss and/or get laid by some hot hippie chicks, pretend to be a potential recruit for the marines.  Yeah, I know, it's not ideal because code pink is "doin it" for the cause, but one might as well reap the benefits while it lasts.


Yeah, I prefer my women attractive and bathed...


----------



## Kacey (Mar 15, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Great video from the Daily show. A must see! I have to say, that so far this is my best example of how Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley



Apparently, the concept of "satire" - much less "political satire" - has passed you by.  This is not _news_ - it is comedy, and it was staged.  Based on real events, yes; also significantly exaggerated for effect.  If you wish to see a more realistic report, you can look here.  Nor is Berkeley the only location to protest Marine recruiters, as a simply google search eliminating Berkeley shows.  Or perhaps using internet search engines for such purposes is too "liberal" for you :idunno:; after all, free access to information is a very liberal concept.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 15, 2008)

That is a good use of regular expressions in the google search, Mrs. Kacey, I would give you reputation points, but I am unable to, the system refuses to accept it. 




Sukerkin said:


> Not quite, Rob.  They're not as 'famous' as the SAS because they're Navy and thus less involved with the sort of operations that catch the media limelight.  The SBS are just as good and do the same sort of operations but do it either underwater or from the water.
> 
> *http://www.specialboatservice.co.uk/*



I understand, now.  From reading the list of "skills", it looks like these troops are much like the Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT), the so-called BUD/SEALs -- Basic Underwater Demolition in our US Navy.  That is very impressive.  I have read Andy McNab's book, and so I know a *little* about this SAS.  Top Notch!  I salute them.

Yes -- when you view this movie, you must understand that it was exaggerated for the effect of making it funny -- it is entertaining in a way to see this -- the folks are a parady of themselves.  

Also -- surely no one can say that is is not of ABSOLUTE IMPORTANCE that ANY of the young people who are inclined to join the armed forces -- especially the Marine Corps -- be very aware that this is very dangerous.  They must be reminded of this.  Sure, there is a lot of pride, and other advantages, but there is DANGER, too.  



upnorthkyosa said:


> Attention all dudes. If you want to kiss and/or get laid by some hot hippie chicks, pretend to be a potential recruit for the marines. Yeah, I know, it's not ideal because code pink is "doin it" for the cause, but one might as well reap the benefits while it lasts.
> 
> This message is brought to you by Enron...energy for the future and beyond!



Haha!  <newGuy12 wonders if that would work>  Hahahaha!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> *You are talking about the British SAS -- The Regiment at Hereford, right???*
> 
> I have a friend who is a US Marine right now -- he is on his freaking fourth tour now. I was joking once -- I said that the US Army Rangers is what we have here that is like the Regiment. He threw a fit a little -- he got a little exited about that, and then He said that the SAS is the ONLY guys that he saw in the field over there that he would have no problem with them having his back -- no joke -- and this guy has busted in rooms and all of that.
> 
> ...


 
Argh NO NO NO!
The SAS are pretty damn good but the SBS can do everything they can plus they can do it in water! The SAS has a habit of pinching the credit for the SBS' work.
The SAS is army based, anyone in the Army or the RAF can apply for selection, they pop off to the Brecon Beacons and have a jolly time and either get chosen or more likley return to their units but the SBS is made up of specially trained Royal Marine Commandos. Commandos are very well trained and quite lethal in themselves but those that get chosen for the Boat Squadron are that bit meaner, faster and deadlier. Think riding on the outside of the Apache helicopters to get to a fight and rescue a fellow Marine, that was the "ordinary" marines (fondly known as bootnecks or booties) so you can imagine what the Boat Squadron chaps do!
Oi Navyvet, I'm a liberal, chase me.....................


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> The hired actor is a former MARINE. And although this was done in humor it in know way belittles the facts.
> Regarding my "purpose" I don't need *pseudo intellectuals* to try and figure out my "Purpose"
> The city does not have a right to restrict recruitment! As long as said city accepts federal tax dollars they have no right to deny recruitment centers, if they did have the right the Marines would not be there any longer and I do believe they are still there in the cess pool called Berkeley.
> As a U.S. Navy vet that worked with many Marines, and having a son that is a U.S. Marine Recruiter i can tell you first hand that they ARE the best of the best.
> Semper Fi & Anchors Away.


 
And I don't need people resorting to taking personal shots in the thread.  Lets keep things civil in here folks.  The Study tends to get a little heated at times, due to the differences of opinion, but again, taking shots is not necessary.

Thank you.

Mike


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 16, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I have to agree with Sukerkin.  As a former Marine, I appreciate your passion, navyvet.  But right now you're at ten;  we need you at about a seven.  :asian:



Cory, i hear ya and agree, 7 max.! I must admit to enjoying getting people to left all fired up. Now let me explain why i came on here and started out like a steam roller. While reading all the posts on the study it was evident who the people on the left were they spoke with for the most part unopposed vitriol about conservatism, morals and religion, and yes i wanted to fight back, my bad, i guess, and the people who i perceived as conservative on here ( and it seems as if their is not many ) weren't offering equal opposition.
So there it is, if I've offended anyone then see the above explanation.
One more thing, master, Please don't think that just because a Sailor is assigned to a fighting ship that he doesn't get his opportunities to fight in actual combat. Do some research on the UNITED STATES NAVY  and you will find that they have the most feared special forces of ANY Military, and even without the special forces, the combination of the United States Marines & the United States Navy is the most formidable force the world has ever known.
Semper Fi and Anchors away.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2008)

It never fails to amaze me that only in America are the words 'left' and 'liberal' seen as insults of the worst kind and where to the rest of the world fascism is seen as the ideal. Yes navyvet you are espousing the cause of fascism something the free world fought and died to stamp out. It may surprise you to learn that the rest of the world actually regards America as liberal because to us the word means 'free' and 'democratic'. It is seen also as fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for those very liberal values ie morals, ethics and freedom of speech you seem to think liberals don't believe it.
I suspect you actually mean communists and are making the common mistake of thinking liberalism and socialism are the same as communism when in fact they are very different concepts.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Cory, i hear ya and agree, 7 max.! I must admit to enjoying getting people to left all fired up. Now let me explain why i came on here and started out like a steam roller. While reading all the posts on the study it was evident who the people on the left were they spoke with for the most part unopposed vitriol about conservatism, morals and religion, and yes i wanted to fight back, my bad, i guess, and the people who i perceived as conservative on here ( and it seems as if their is not many ) weren't offering equal opposition.
> So there it is, if I've offended anyone then see the above explanation.
> One more thing, master, Please don't think that just because a Sailor is assigned to a fighting ship that he doesn't get his opportunities to fight in actual combat. Do some research on the UNITED STATES NAVY and you will find that *they have the most feared special forces of ANY Military*, and even without the special forces, the combination of the United States Marines & the United States Navy is the most formidable force the world has ever known.
> Semper Fi and Anchors away.


 
Obviously it's your patriotic duty to say that but actually several countries have spec forces equal to and in some cases superior to the Americans. Don't assume superior numbers will always carry the day.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 16, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> It never fails to amaze me that only in America are the words 'left' and 'liberal' seen as insults of the worst kind and where to the rest of the world fascism is seen as the ideal. Yes navyvet you are espousing the cause of fascism something the free world fought and died to stamp out. It may surprise you to learn that the rest of the world actually regards America as liberal because to us the word means 'free' and 'democratic'. It is seen also as fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for those very liberal values ie morals, ethics and freedom of speech you seem to think liberals don't believe it.
> I suspect you actually mean communists and are making the common mistake of thinking liberalism and socialism are the same as communism when in fact they are very different concepts.


 
Its because our Democrat Party co-opted the term as their birthright and warped it into something Europeans wouldnt recognize as liberalism. Our founding fathers were liberals. Our current liberals are socialists. Our Republican Party then built their platform on the "individual rights"/"keep gvt. out of our busniess" byline. Its all crap. They are all politicians who pander for votes. But the issues have become so deliniated by party that you cant figure out who you despise least.





> ...the word &#8216;Fascism&#8217; is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept &#8216;bully&#8217; as a synonym for &#8216;Fascist&#8217;
> 
> -George Orwell


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 16, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Obviously it's your patriotic duty to say that but actually several countries have spec forces equal to and in some cases superior to the Americans. Don't assume superior numbers will always carry the day.


 
Lets not start that crap. We do just fine at killing people and breaking things so lets just leave it at that. Last I heard we were allies anyways.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 16, 2008)

Wikipedias definition of "Classical Liberalism"



> "Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."





> "Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"[49]




How I WISH WISH WISH! We had a party that truly subscribed to it.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 16, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Obviously it's your patriotic duty to say that but actually several countries have spec forces equal to and in some cases superior to the Americans. Don't assume superior numbers will always carry the day.



Yo Tez, 1st of all i was referring to the Navy Seals, which is a very small special op's unit, and the Marines are also a very small branch of our Military, neither of the above relies on "Superior Numbers" they are all about skill and attitude, do a Google search and you'll see their numbers.
And don't get me wrong, i absolutely respect the British Military, the Brit's and Americans are brothers in fighting tyranny. But, i only have history here to back me up when i say, WHO YA GONNA CALL.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 16, 2008)

Ghostbusters.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

I was going to do that but didn't dare for fear of causing offence, particularly as we're cautiously working our way towards an accomodation so that we can have meaningful and un-acrimonious debates on certain powder-keg issues.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 16, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I was going to do that but didn't dare for fear of causing offence, particularly as we're cautiously working our way towards an accomodation so that we can have meaningful and un-acrimonious debates on certain powder-keg issues.



Say it Brother, you can't offend me! That's part of the problem with this world we live in, everybody is sooooo soft and easy to offend. In the eye's of our Grandfathers were all cowards for being reluctant to say what we feel and for tolerating things that we feel is an abomination.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

Thankyou for that and I shall bear it in mind for later chats - it is always good to know when you can be 'straight' with someone without giving offense (something that it is notoriously easy to do on the Net).

I do think that there is something to what you say there at the end, when you mention tolerating things rather than speaking up.  It's a very English way of dealing with social conflicts tho' - we'll chunter and mutter behind our handkerchiefs about how disgraceful something is but never speak up publically.  The result of that is that nothing changes, or in fact gets worse.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 17, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Semper Fi and Anchors away.


Um, shouldn't it be Anchors *Aweigh*? :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 17, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Um, shouldn't it be Anchors *Aweigh*?


    

How many smilies can I put into a post? 

    

Fifteen.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 17, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Um, shouldn't it be Anchors *Aweigh*? :idunno:


 
Please forgive for the mistake, I'll take my beatings now instead of later.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 17, 2008)

LOL
Let me quote two lines from that interview

Hippy chick protesting the Marines who swear to protect the constitution
  We need to protect free speech
Reporter
If only there was an organization to protect free speech
Hippy Chick
That would be great
They dont even know what they are protesting. A social event is not a protest.

#2
Reporter 
So if we got rid of police there would be no crime?
Hippy chick in deep thought
Poetically
LOL 
Even a Marine knows the flawed logic in this.
(sorry x-ranger I had to get in a dig)


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 17, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Please forgive for the mistake, I'll take my beatings now instead of later.


Where's the line? :lol2:


----------



## The Game (Mar 17, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Please forgive for the mistake, I'll take my beatings now instead of later.


I don't know, you frogs usually ended up at the bottom of the pile in any bar brawl I observed. Seriously, how many navy men saw any real action the last 30 plus years? 

Lets look at your war there Popeye.


> The US Army had 38,179 killed in the war or 65 percent of all fatalities.
> The US Navy had 2,556 killed or 4.5 percent of all fatatities.
> The US Marines had 14,836 killed or 25.6 percent of all fatalities.
> The US Air Force had 2,580 killed or 4.4 percent of all fatalities, and lost less than one percent of all Air Force personnel, compared to Marine Corps losses of five men for every 100 who served in the Vietnamese War.



Considering how many missions the knights flew, I'm surprised their numbers are that low. So, of all the branches, you had a cake walk. Since you're just here to cause trouble though, I feel good smacking your *** around a bit Troll boy.

Simply put, you're talking about the Marines. Best you let the real men do the talking as they earned it. Go iron your necktie and get out a fresh dixie cup while you read.

The only fish I got respect for are the ones who run silent and run deep. I doubt you could do either boy.


----------



## The Game (Mar 17, 2008)

The Game said:


> I don't know, you frogs usually ended up at the bottom of the pile in any bar brawl I observed. Seriously, how many navy men saw any real action the last 30 plus years?
> 
> Lets look at your war there Popeye.
> 
> ...


Oh, and I saw some reference to the Brits. Good fighters, once they got out of that "march in a straight line" and "wearing red" thing. Don't forget the Canucks. Might only have 1 bullet in the whole country, but they don't need it to kick ***. 

Marines of any nation are a tough bunch. I'm not worried about them in Berkley.

Unless the pot smoke gets to them, then they'll just eat the lot of em! ROFLMFAO!


----------



## Ray (Mar 17, 2008)

The Game said:


> I don't know, you frogs usually ended up at the bottom of the pile in any bar brawl I observed. Seriously, how many navy men saw any real action the last 30 plus years?


Someone told me that when 100 Navy men submerge on a submarine, the submarine resurfaces with 50 couples on it.  I'm not sure what it means, but everyone else had a good laugh.


----------



## The Game (Mar 17, 2008)

Ray said:


> Someone told me that when 100 Navy men submerge on a submarine, the submarine resurfaces with 50 couples on it.  I'm not sure what it means, but everyone else had a good laugh.


Large phalic shaped object
Filled with Sea Men.

He's not a Frog, he's a Snake!

A Trowser Snake!

Hey, "Navy Troll"!  Is your name "Richard"? by any chance?

Because if it is, I'll call you Dick for short.

Short Dick.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. Short Dick has his thong all knotted up because some hippies told the Marines to go away. I'm sure the Corp felt very threatened.

Actually, I highly doubt Short Dick there really is a vet, ever actually saw service and is anything other than a troll. Too many contradictions and errors in his droolings for a real Navy man to make. (And for the real navy chaps I have nothing but real respect for.)

So, Short Dick, whats your malfunction there sad sack?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 17, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy **http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486**. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Brian R. VanCise
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 17, 2008)

The Game said:


> Large phalic shaped object
> Filled with Sea Men.
> 
> He's not a Frog, he's a Snake!
> ...



Great dialog Mr. Intellectual, I see HHH is your Hero, what are you bout 15years old??


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 17, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Obviously it's your patriotic duty to say that but actually several countries have spec forces equal to and in some cases superior to the Americans. Don't assume superior numbers will always carry the day.


 
Man for Man Israel has the best military in the world. My oppion, take it for what you will. By the way, while the U.S. doesn't have the most money, it does have the highest budget. In fact, take the other countrys in the top 10, and the U.S. still spends more.

Also, every time I've talked to Marines (which is alot) one of the first things they tell me is always 'You wanna sign up? Alright, but I'll let you know right now, it will be hard. You make it, you could very easily end up in Iraq.' Keep in mind, the Navy folks tend to omit that there is Navy personnel 'in country'.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2008)

"HHH"? {don't you just know I'm going to regret asking this ).

*Navy*, a word of advice - it's not wise to bounce back a riposte, however, justified you feel, after the "Official Word" comes down.  That way lies either reprimand for the individual or closing of the thread.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> "HHH"? {don't you just know I'm going to regret asking this ).
> 
> *Navy*, a word of advice - it's not wise to bounce back a riposte, however, justified you feel, after the "Official Word" comes down.  That way lies either reprimand for the individual or closing of the thread.



Your right! Thanks for the advice.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Lets not start that crap. We do just fine at killing people and breaking things so lets just leave it at that. Last I heard we were allies anyways.


 
Mmmm allies, yep, blue on blue is all I will say.


----------



## The Game (Mar 18, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Great dialog Mr. Intellectual, I see HHH is your Hero, what are you bout 15years old??


You seem to have an issue with intellectuals. Why is that? Do smart people intimidate you and make you feel stupid, Mr. Troll?  As to age, I could ask you the same thing. But you'd likely lie as you have about other things so far, troublemaker. Personally, I like wrestling, but I supose the plots would be beyond your understanding Short.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Mmmm allies, yep, blue on blue is all I will say.


 

That some sort of Brit slang?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2008)

*Game*, I know it's hard to resist having the last word when an exchange becomes a tad on the warm side but, as I said to *Navy* above, it's a sure-fire way to get a thread locked once the Moderator Warnings have started to appear.

If someone winds your clock then that is what the RTM function is for.  Altho' confonting people directly might give some personal satisfaction, all it does is fan the flames and made a thread hot for everyone.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 18, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> That some sort of Brit slang?


 
Military slang.  Blue on blue means friendly fire.  Red on red is when your enemies start shooting each other.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Hmmm..never heard that one before. Sorta like THIS incident? Or THIS one? Or THIS one? These incidents are tragic but unintentional and to imply otherwise just compounds the tragedy.

So its either a shot as in "you guys are idiots who kill us" or its a threat as in "allies?? yeah... you better look out" ????

Heres some interesting articles on "blue on blue", from a Brit.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DD1E.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3774/



> I recognise that the &#8216;war on terror&#8217; has been a ghastly mistake, that we should never have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, and that the White House seriously needs a rethink on its foreign policy. But otherwise, I like Americans. Carping at a nation that put the first man on the moon, invented the internet, gave us Hemingway, Copland, Woody Allen and the Simpsons, for being &#8216;stupid&#8217;, merely makes us appear petty and ignorant. And the fact that we Brits have an unenviable record of killing our own allies makes us look even the more stupid.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 18, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Also, every time I've talked to Marines (which is alot) one of the first things they tell me is always 'You wanna sign up? Alright, but I'll let you know right now, it will be hard. You make it, you could very easily end up in Iraq.' Keep in mind, the Navy folks tend to omit that there is Navy personnel 'in country'.


 
Yeah, it's funny... I realized when I talked to my recruiter that the Marines consider the possibility of going to war to be a selling point.  The Marine office of the Lansing MEPS was playing Full Metal Jacket nonstop.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Its what makes Marines...well...Marines.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2008)

Friendly fire incidents happen but sometimes they can be prevented, one in particular happened in Afghanistan and mates of one of my students were killed. The problem comes however when our allies won't acknowledge it happened and won't provide evidence in the coroners court to say what happened. It's *not* a blame thing until people start trying to cover it up. Families want to know how their children have died.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/us-must-attend-friendlyfire-inquests-425148.html


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

As harsh as this may sound, unless I was subpoenaed by a court recognized by my nation, I wouldnt show up at some foriegn powers inquest either. 

With the political atmosphere lately and the whole concept of prosecuting our soldiers through some sort of "international court"... I wouldnt want to run the risk of rotting in some foriegn jail for an act done in good faith but in error. Or be sacrificed by my own government to grease the wheels of international diplomacy.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Friendly fire incidents happen but sometimes they can be prevented, one in particular happened in Afghanistan and mates of one of my students were killed. The problem comes however when our allies won't acknowledge it happened and won't provide evidence in the coroners court to say what happened. It's *not* a blame thing until people start trying to cover it up. Families want to know how their children have died.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/us-must-attend-friendlyfire-inquests-425148.html


 
BTW there was no "cover up" the US just refused to send US military personel to Britan for an inquest. We dont do that. Our soldiers are accountable to OUR military courts only. And OUR punishments.

From what I understand the British Military and our Military were satisfied with whatever investigation took place. It was once some Assistiant Deputy Corner declared the incident "criminal" (where HIS expertise on military law comes from or where his authority begins and ends is foriegn to me) that the trouble started.

The US military *never* allows active duty military personnel to be tried by a foreign, unaccountable, court. All US military service members are subject to the UCMJ, as such *we* conduct our own investigations. If *we* find the individuals guilty *we* will punish them accordingly. However if they are acquitted and found not guilty, that's it, no double jeopardy pony show in foreign courts, that opens up too many possibilities. Biased cases, different standards, etc... In order to ensure equality for all soldiers only the US military is allowed to investigate and try service members. It has always been the case when it comes to the US military.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2008)

I think you mistake what a coroners court is for in this country. It is solely to determine the cause of death, it does not try people nor does it hand out punishments. It is the same, if you like as a board of enquiry under oath.
They merely wanted to determine the cause of death and if satisfied it was an accident would have ruled it as such. In cases of non accidental deaths the court will rule on the evidence provided and if they decide it was murder they would have ruled as such. It's then up to the police and the criminal courts to try the case if a suspect is found.
American service people were only be called to testify as to what they saw/did etc. There is no reason why they shouldn't do this even if it turned out to be their fault.They weren't there to be tried or punished, the coroners court doesn't have the powers for that. They were asked to be witnesses nothing more.
There are currently over ten cases of friendly fire incidents waiting for a coroners finding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...h-soldiers-killed-in-us-airstrike-462924.html


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Regardless. Our military system of justice stands. American soldiers will not be put before a foreign court.

It seems like the coroner had already made a determination that the deaths were "criminal" and "unlawful" anyway. Because the pilots were not "acting in self defense" ??? WTF??? Is that the standard in war now? You cant bomb any enemy target without letting them get a shot off at you first if thats the standard. It sounds like a "bring the guilty parties before me for judgment" situation. I wonder if the same standard will be applied to the British soldiers I referenced upthread?

All info was shared with your Ministry of Defense anyway...



> "There was a complete investigation back in 2003 carried out by central command in cooperation with the UK," Lieutenant-Colonel Catherine Reardon, a US air force spokeswoman, said. "There were UK air and army LNOs (liaison officers) there. All the information was shared."


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Regardless. Our military system of justice stands. American soldiers will not be put before a foreign court.
> 
> It seems like the coroner had already made a determination that the deaths were "criminal" and "unlawful" anyway. Because the pilots were not "acting in self defense" ??? WTF??? Is that the standard in war now? You cant bomb any enemy target without letting them get a shot off at you first if thats the standard. It sounds like a "bring the guilty parties before me for judgment" situation. I wonder if the same standard will be applied to the British soldiers I referenced upthread?
> 
> All info was shared with your Ministry of Defense anyway...


 
My Ministry of Defence? yes that's right they are my employers and it's my colleagues who actually investigate these events. Are we satisfied we have been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no we are absolutely not however our govenments want to spin it. We absolutely did not receive the information we deemed we needed.
You have missed the point, the coroner cannot determine before hearing evidence what the finding will be. the coroner cannot bring any judgement on any person. The merely determine the cause of death.
Yes the standard is upheld for British soldiers and I swear to that.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

What the hell does a corner know about military policy and procedure? Over here a corner is a doctor that determines cause of death by examining a body. Here is gotta be obvious that the American Pilots shot that poor soldier. Its not like the USAF was saying "what friendly fire incident???" And the corner has to prove the projectile came from a US plane. Beyond that its up to the military to determine if policy or procedure was violated either intentionally or through criminal negligence. Seems outside a corners area of expertise.

And I got the point clearly. We do not put our soldiers before foreign courts.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2008)

This is from 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article422701.ece

But rather than the blue on blues this is what is upsetting.It has been a constant problem ever since that certain authorities are withholding evidence and trying to spin. Tragedies happen in wartime but covering them up is not the way to go.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06da463d7


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

Especially when statistically the US has the largest presence in theater and is doing most of the fighting and 

dying. [dated info]



> American casualties and British casualties
> 
> Finally, the number of British deaths in Iraq remains overshadowed by the number of American deaths. Where 109 Britons have died, 2,426 Americans have died.
> 
> ...




The American military is playing a central role in each theater and so it's to be expected that American forces would be responsible for the majority of friendly fire incidents. Also remember that not all friendly fire incidents result in death. In some cases there would be exchange of gun fire followed by a realization -- for what ever reason -- of the fire being exchanged with a friendly.

Further, I sincerely wonder if media bias comes into play in reporting friendly fire incidents. Then again perhaps friendly fire incidents involving other nations are so rare in occurrence due to the small size of their forces that while they may have occured, they just have not reached the level of killing someone. Perhaps they wounded troops instead or maybe not.

I'm actually impressed that in a conflict including hundreds of thousands of troops in a rotation system that so few possibly have been killed due to friendly fire. If you compare this with prior conflicts you'd see far higher rates. Yet, even with these improvements and changes people see a lack of perfection as the system being broken. It isn't. Something can be imperfect and yet not broken. As stated before, we're seeing a shift from the "lives of soldiers mean little" era in warfare itself -- not necessarily refering to the mindset of those in charge -- to a "every life means something" era where what ever practical can be done is done to minimize losses while fighting a war.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

> Details From The UK SUN:
> On the tape, one pilot &#8212; call sign POPOV36 - appears to gloat sickeningly during the attack.
> 
> He is egged on by the second &#8212; call sign POPOV35 &#8212; who encourages: &#8220;Get him, get him!&#8221;
> ...



Gimme an ****ingbreak. If they were the enemy (which these pilots obviously thought they were) would that "gloating" have been a big deal? The SUN is implying that the US Pilots were enjoying shooting UK Soldiers intentionally. Talk about media bias!


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2008)

*Angel*, you might make a better case with cooler words.  

As it is, you're not going to make much headway attempting to make the case that the American military can do no wrong, especially when the British army took more caualties from our allies than we did from the 'enemy' during the Gulf War Part 2 in 3D with Surround Sound.

That reputation for Blue-on-Blue is not new.  It's been earned in many places around the world and at many times.  Even my grandfather from his time at Montecassino during the Second World War said:

"When the Germans attacked, we ducked.  When we attacked, the Germans ducked.  When the American's attacked _everybody_ ducked".

Whether it's deserved or not, that's the global image you have to deal with.  In such a picture, you can see why refusing to even give evidence in person is seen in the light it is.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

We Brits Invented Friendly Fire




> ...These quips rest upon the twin assumptions that &#8216;friendly fire&#8217; is a relatively new phenomenon and that only the Americans are guilty of it. Both preconceptions are untrue. What is more, Britain, an historically warfaring nation, has in the past been one of the worst offenders of killing its own in &#8216;friendly fire&#8217; incidents. ...







> But the shift is not merely technological, nor cultural, mirroring our risk-averse society. It is also nakedly political. The fact that both Dara O Briain and Jeremy Clarkson, two television personalities from opposite sides of the political spectrum, make morbid jokes about &#8216;American soldiers shooting our Tommies&#8217; tells us a great deal. One thing that unites the traditional left and non-neocon right in this country is its hatred and resentment of the US and Americans. The left hates them because they see them as imperialist bullies and morons (&#8216;Ha ha! Look at George W Bush! He can&#8217;t speak properly!&#8217, while the old-fashioned right has always resented Britain being usurped by the US in its role as the most powerful country in the world, and by a people they also regard as philistines (&#8216;Look here my old colonial friend, I think you&#8217;ll find &#8220;colour&#8221; is spelt with a &#8220;u&#8221;&#8217; &#8211; ignoring the fact, incidentally, that were it not for reforms made in British English in the eighteenth century, we would now be writing about the &#8216;war on terrour&#8217;, or lamenting that the Iraqi invasion was an &#8216;errour&#8217.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2008)

You miss my point, sir.  

My last sentence was where the 'meat' lay viz, if you're dealing with a 'perception', then you have to work within the scope that view gives you otherwise your odds of influencing opinion are much reduced.

I'll have a look at that last link you posted as I'm interested to see what it says but given that our military, in times gone by, has quite happily fired into a close quarters battle I doubt that I'll find anything startling.

We could exchange such things 'till the cows come home - my own most disbelievingly memorable being from the Gulf War Part 1 where I saw an Apache quite merrily stitching up a platoon of Bradley's and their fleeing occupants.  If I as an English civilian could tell that those were units from their own army and those supposedly professional pilots could not, what conclusions would you draw?

As I said, it gains nothing to circumvent the core points with such matters.  Reason is your only tool (well, that and unbiased evidence sources) when you debate an issue online.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 18, 2008)

Folks, this threads moved all over the place. We're now arguing over the concept of so called "friendly fire", something which is not very friendly, and nothing new.  General Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own men who mistook him for an enemy, in 1863.  

For a more detailed list, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

You can point fingers and get pissed, but the truth is, all sides in war have shot their own, and their allies. It's a tragedy, but in a battle field environment, it will happen. 

Before anyone starts going down the "well, you nations reputation" train, I'd read that link.

Seriously.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2008)

If the other nations had more troops in the field, they would be having more of these incidents themselves. Its basic statistics as I see it. 

Good link. I think the RAF sinking an entire Brit flotilla in 1944 is a good counterpoint to the quip about the Apache's shooting up some Bradleys. 

BTW things look different from the air.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 18, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Gimme an f'in break. If they were the enemy (which these pilots obviously thought they were) would that "gloating" have been a big deal? The SUN is implying that the US Pilots were enjoying shooting UK Soldiers intentionally. Talk about media bias!


 
Being active duty, I feel the need to stay as far from this conversation as possible.  Just a few things that I feel I must say.

First, gloating over any kill is a punishable offense, especially since everything is recorded.  I've seen enough cockpit and camera feeds to know how the pilots and targeters actually behave and for the most part, it is 100% business and 100% professional.

Second, there is A LOT of interservice rivalry, there always will be.  Every force will always be saying that they are better than the others.  But let me say that the current push in ALL branches of service is a JOINT FORCE.  Joint taskings are the most common kind and we are pushed and trained more and more toward a joint environment where we act hand in hand with every service.  There is no more "Navy's job" or "Army's job" there is the "US military's job."  

No matter who is responsible, blue on blue kills are never a good thing and they are NEVER intentional.

Last, I personally met and ran missions with Aussies, Italians, Koreans, and Iraqis.  If the country has a single soldier there - they're ok in my book.  Every country with a military has a special forces unit.  Every service has a special forces unit.  Each has their own role and their own strengths and weaknesses - including PJs, SEALs, Force Recon, Army SF, SAS, and every other specialized tactical combat unit.

Personally, I've learned that its best to just play nice and respect EVERYONE's forces.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

I think my point hs been missed totally I'm afraid. 
My point is not that the friendly fire incidents have happened in the theatre of war, *it's that OUR governments seem determined to cover such things up.*

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/si...hire_coroners_service/the_coroner_s_court.htm


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2008)

From my perspective:

Let me live in ignorant bliss, believing that my child/spouse/parent died in attempting to defeat an enemy, rather than accidentally due to friendly fire.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> From my perspective:
> 
> Let me live in ignorant bliss, believing that my child/spouse/parent died in attempting to defeat an enemy, rather than accidentally due to friendly fire.


 
The problem now though is that very little now isn't seen. Take the recent events in Burma and Tibet where thankfully we are able to know what is going on through brave people filming events on their mobile phones and using the internet. The same applies in war zones.
I've talked to soldiers who have survived blue on blues and also to a couple of famlies who have lost people, the anger for the most part is against war and secondly against the event not so much as the people who caused it.
There is an appearance of arrogance to them when the powers that be refuse to allow their people to come as witnesses to the inquests. The families WANT *to understand *not necessarily blame, they aren't stupid and know that things like this happen. They want to know also how it can be avoided in future.
All they and we are asking for is openess, that the people concerned come forward as witnesses to say what happened. They want the truth, however painful and they will face it bravely far better than being caught up in a a mesh of red tape and lies.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> If the other nations had more troops in the field, they would be having more of these incidents themselves. Its basic statistics as I see it.
> 
> Good link. I think the RAF sinking an entire Brit flotilla in 1944 is a good counterpoint to the quip about the Apache's shooting up some Bradleys.
> 
> BTW things look different from the air.


 
It was the guncamera image we were seeing and it was quite clear - as was the voice recorder.

I have no further input into this as a conversation that begins to eat it's own tail is a futile one, especially if one respondant is determined to either misinterpret or reinterpret everything to fit a fixed mould.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It was the guncamera image we were seeing and it was quite clear - as was the voice recorder.
> 
> I have no further input into this as a conversation that begins to eat it's own tail is a futile one, especially if one respondant is determined to either misinterpret or reinterpret everything to fit a fixed mould.


 
 I agree, it's pointless trying to discuss an issue when whatever you post is blatently misunderstood.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2008)

Our governments do a few things quite well. Covering things up and pointing blame elsewhere are 2 of them.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 19, 2008)

God, I created a monster with this thread, it should be gone.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The US military *never* allows active duty military personnel to be tried by a foreign, unaccountable, court.


I know a guy who'd probably argue that point. He assaulted a civilian while our Marine unit was deployed to Okinawa circa 1988, and spent several months in a Japanese prison at Naha.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> They want to know also how it can be avoided in future.



Until there are no wars, it will never be avoided.  I wonder if they will understand that?



			
				TEZ3 said:
			
		

> All they and we are asking for is openess, that the people concerned come forward as witnesses to say what happened. They want the truth, however painful and they will face it bravely far better than being caught up in a a mesh of red tape and lies.



the following comment is more directed towards those who haven't lost family, but still want the truth.

I question the motivations of those who want the truth.  It appears to me that when they get the truth, it is used merely as ammuniton to fight against the war itself, at least in the case of the current war. It simply becomes "see, I told you the government is full of liars and thieves, etc."

I question whether they are really in it for the involved families, or to further their own political viewpoints.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 19, 2008)

Kreth said:


> I know a guy who'd probably argue that point. He assaulted a civilian while our Marine unit was deployed to Okinawa circa 1988, and spent several months in a Japanese prison at Naha.


 

Under Article 7, for conduct that violates both U.S. military law and the law of the host country, there is concurrent jurisdiction. In that event, U.S. courts martial are granted the primary right to exercise jurisdiction to try crimes committed against the security or property of the United States or against U.S. personnel or their property, as well as crimes arising out of actions taken "in the performance of official duty. " In all other instances of concurrent jurisdiction, the host country has the primary right to exercise that jurisdiction. However, in deference to U.S. concerns, the host country is obligated to give "sympathetic consideration" to any U.S. request for waiver of the primary right to exercise jurisdiction if the United States claims such waiver "to be of particular importance."


----------



## Ray (Mar 20, 2008)

So the pink ladies are against the war in Iraq; and this is the only reason they are making a big deal about the marines in Berkley.  The media have turned it into "bush lied to us about the WMD's and the reason we went to war is invalid."

Everyone seems to have forgotten about the UN Sanctions against Iraq and the "Food for Oil" programs wherein relatives of UN officials enriched themselves (they were bribed by Saddam).  And there's more we have forgotten.

I'd rather be sanctioned by the UN than invaded by an alliance of countries that actually want to enforce the rules that the "world" laid down.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 20, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Under Article 7, for conduct that violates both U.S. military law and the law of the host country, there is concurrent jurisdiction. In that event, U.S. courts martial are granted the primary right to exercise jurisdiction to try crimes committed against the security or property of the United States or against U.S. personnel or their property, as well as crimes arising out of actions taken "in the performance of official duty. " In all other instances of concurrent jurisdiction, the host country has the primary right to exercise that jurisdiction. However, in deference to U.S. concerns, the host country is obligated to give "sympathetic consideration" to any U.S. request for waiver of the primary right to exercise jurisdiction if the United States claims such waiver "to be of particular importance."


I thought maybe that's what you were getting at. I just wanted to clarify your comment that the US never surrenders jurisdiction. The case I referred to was an off-duty (and off-base) incident, so the Okinawan government had jurisdiction. I believe it's part of SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 20, 2008)

Yup. If the US courts martial acquits someone in a case stemming from official duty, we dont hand them over to a foreign court to give them a second shot. If the soldier is out on pass/leave and commits a crime in the host population thats another matter.

Interesting article on the matter here.


----------

