# The Type of Men they are.



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

During hostile action in Iraq, a Marine is hit and wounded and this brave Marine comes to his aid while taking hostile fire. A second Marine comes to the rescue and is struck by an enemy round. In the attempt to evacuate the wounded Marine, the Marine to the left is fatally struck again by enemy fire and falls to the ground. 

The Marine on the right will survive, but sadly the Marine on the left who came to rescue his fellow Marine would not survive. 

These are the images you will not see on CNN, but as hard as they may be to look at, it is important to see them as Marines, to honor them, and to be filled with a sense of honor and respect for those brave men who have fallen and for those who would unselfishly risk their own lives for their fellow Marines


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 19, 2005)

Very honorable of them.  It's unfortunate they had to make such decisions in the first place.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

I have nothing but admiration and respect for men like this.

 Semper Fi


 I wouldn't be suprised if a few choice individuals who frequent this board will have less than venerating coments about them though.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

> Very honorable of them. It's unfortunate they had to make such decisions in the first place.


Always have to take the shot dont you?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 19, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Theyre Marines. It makes no difference....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 19, 2005)

What doesn't?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 19, 2005)

Semper Fidelis. Let's try to remember...they are boys. Many not legally old enough to drink, dying by command or by honor.

D.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

> what doesnt?



Your agenda.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

It is unfortunate that some are so far gone in hatred of their fellow Americans that they automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with them politically would reflexively insult American soldiers who--however they ended up there--are a) representing us, and b) fighting for their fellow soldiers. Personally, I don't need to be reminded every five minutes that brave men and women are out there risking their asses every day: I've known it since I was four years old.

I suspect it's because some have bought the ugly propaganda spouted by the likes of Michael Savage. I also suspect it's because some cannot tolerate the discussion and dissent that this country is all about. And I know it's because attacking other Americans and screaming about patriotism is a helluva sight easier actually thinking about issues and looking at reality.

I'll tell you something that's different from when I was a kid: too many people now feel perfectly OK about yapping that their fellow Americans are traitors and morally corrupt and whatever else. 

Here's the difference between me and them: my theories tell me that I would be morally obligated to try and do the same thing those soldiers did if I possibly could, even if it was that SOB Mich. Savage out there. His theories tell him to leave me there.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

"War is young men dying and old men talking."

The way its always been.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2005)

My family has served honorably in all branches of the U.S. armed services in all wars. The bravery exhibited here helps me to remember that in service comes (sometimes) sacrifice.  

. :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Your agenda.


My agenda.....

Sorry, but that was my first thought after reading the scenario and seeing the photographs.  *Shrugs*

But hey, I'll sport along.  Yay for the soldiers, go America!!!  Woof!!


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> My family has served honorably in all branches of the U.S. armed services in all wars. The bravery exhibited here helps me to remember that in service comes (sometimes) sacrifice.
> 
> . :asian:



.:asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "War is young men dying and old men talking."


 Yup, I'll drink to that :drinkbeer:

 Even in if you are in dissagreement with the politics of the war, you got to admire the courage and the sacrifice of the soldiers.  Can't pay them enough to do what they do.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Thats my only "point" here.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that some are so far gone in hatred of their fellow Americans that they automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with them politically would reflexively insult American soldiers who--however they ended up there--are a) representing us, and b) fighting for their fellow soldiers. Personally, I don't need to be reminded every five minutes that brave men and women are out there risking their asses every day: I've known it since I was four years old.
> 
> I suspect it's because some have bought the ugly propaganda spouted by the likes of Michael Savage. I also suspect it's because some cannot tolerate the discussion and dissent that this country is all about. And I know it's because attacking other Americans and screaming about patriotism is a helluva sight easier actually thinking about issues and looking at reality.
> 
> ...


 Dude, you must really hate Micheal Savage.  You mention him in every thread that is even remotely political.

 I wonder what bothers you more, what he says or the fact that so many people listen to what he says?


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Tip: Never call a Marine a Soldier...they dont take it well.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Your agenda.


Why is it impossible to regret the sacrifice of these brave men for a cause that you do not believe in?

These men showed incredible bravery and I feel that their will to serve our country is being wasted.

THAT is truly a loss...

Honoring service to our country is one thing, putting it to use is another.  This isn't a one way street.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 19, 2005)

> My family has served honorably in all branches of the U.S. armed services in all wars. The bravery exhibited here helps me to remember that in service comes (sometimes) sacrifice.


*                                                   .*
*                                                   :asian: *


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/who_heroes.htm

A high school senior in Ohio, Adrienne, got an English class assignment. She had to research and write a thesis. And, she could pick her topic.

Adrienne dipped back into our Nation's history. She reached back to a time before she was born, back to a time of national turmoil, back to the time of the war in Vietnam. Today, that long-ago conflict is a mere footnote in her history books. Who fought? Why? Who survived? Who died? Who were the heroes? 

From her Nation's long struggle during the war in Vietnam, Adrienne picked her topic: WHO ARE THE HEROES?

An exhaustive search began. As part of her research, young Adrienne posted a notice on the web-site of the USMC Vietnam Helicopter Association. For the Marine Corps helicopter crews who flew and fought in Vietnam, she asked: "Who are the heroes?"

The many responses included an e-mail reply from Marion Sturkey, a Marine Corps helicopter pilot in Vietnam. He wrote not of glory and valor. He never mentioned anything he did, or tried to do. Instead, he wrote of basic human virtues: commitment, loyalty, brotherly love, and a cause greater than self. His reply to a young American schoolgirl is quoted below, verbatim:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 6, 2001

Adrienne:

I understand you are researching a project about heroism during the war in Vietnam. I commend you for the extent of your research.

"Who are the heroes?" you ask. I had the privilege of knowing many heroes during my time in Vietnam in 1966-1967. But, I doubt they are the type of men you would recognize as such. They were simply common men. Actually, "boys" would be more accurate with regard to many of them. They were not the "Follow Me!" type you may have seen in the movies. I have never heard any of them call themselves brave, although I witnessed what you would call bravery on a daily basis.

So, who are the heroes? They were the men (or "boys," many just a year or so older than yourself) who believed in each other, who relied on each other, and who sacrificed for each other. *They were bound together by simple loyalty to their fellow Marines, their friends. They shared an unspoken trust and responsibility. Each knew that no matter how grave his peril, his friends would try to save him. They might fail and lose their own lives in the attempt. But, we all knew that they would try. We each had the same obligation. When one of our friends was in peril, we had to try, despite the danger. We had no choice. That was the pact we made. That was our code.*

Heroes were soft-spoken men like Jim McKay, a helicopter gunner. Jim had survived his scheduled time in combat and was scheduled to fly home on the night of August 8, 1966. But, that night he learned that four of his friends were cut off, surrounded, fighting for their lives in the dark. Jim refused to leave Vietnam. He volunteered to fly on a rescue mission. His helicopter was shot down.

Heroes were men like Joe Roman, a helicopter pilot. On January 26, 1967, he answered the plea for help from Marines trapped on a ridge in Laos. They warned him of the danger, but he disregarded the warning and flew down to attempt a rescue. He, too, got shot down. Wounded in the head and buttocks, he survived. But, he never talked about it afterwards. When questioned, he would shrug and say that it was "nothing anyone else wouldn't do." He was right. Incidentally, Joe died last year. I attended his internment in Arlington National Cemetery.

There were thousands of such heroes. I am honored to have had the privilege to have served with them. *Simply stated, they believed in a cause greater than themselves. They believed in each other. They knew the danger, but they also knew their responsibility and their code.* They shared a brotherly love that no earthly circumstance can shatter. They, along with the 58,000-plus names on The Wall in Washington, DC, are true heroes.

The heroes who survived are now in their fifties or sixties. You know them as fathers, uncles, neighbors, maybe teachers. They have jobs and families. They pay taxes and make our society function. They don't label themselves as heroes. Yet, they are American Patriots in every sense of the words. And, deep down inside, they still maintain that undying brotherly love for the men with whom they served in Vietnam, thirty years or so ago. Without question, they are your heroes.

I hope the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Warmest regards,

Marion Sturkey


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

those Marines are American hero's.  God bless their souls.  it's a shame to see that their actions are not respected, even if you don't believe in them.  those boys are more American than half the folks on this board.  like it or not.  

@ Phantom:  enjoy the freedom you have to desecrate their actions.  it's because of actions like this in our nation's history that you have such a right.

i don't see any agenda behind the posting of such graphic happenings.  and if such a thing exists, it is paying homage and tribute to the American Soldier and what they stand for.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that some are so far gone in hatred of their fellow Americans that they automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with them politically would reflexively insult American soldiers who--however they ended up there--are a) representing us, and b) fighting for their fellow soldiers. Personally, I don't need to be reminded every five minutes that brave men and women are out there risking their asses every day: I've known it since I was four years old.
> 
> I suspect it's because some have bought the ugly propaganda spouted by the likes of Michael Savage. I also suspect it's because some cannot tolerate the discussion and dissent that this country is all about. And I know it's because attacking other Americans and screaming about patriotism is a helluva sight easier actually thinking about issues and looking at reality.
> 
> ...


I agree.

How easy it is "to face your neighbor" when you don't have the courage "to face the enemy"......:shrug:


----------



## Brother John (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Tip: Never call a Marine a Soldier...they dont take it well.


Please, fill me in; why is that???



Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

I'm completely mystified by the statement that anybody on this thread disrespected those Marines: could you maybe point it out to me? 

Meanwhile, here's another little essay to read by someone you may've heard of.

Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq
by Max Cleland, September 18, 2003

"Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance."

The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me. 

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:

Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.

If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.

If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.

If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.

. If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.

In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.

Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.

A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase. In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

--Max Cleland, former U.S. senator, was head of the Veterans Administration in the Carter administration. He teaches at American University in Washington.

Cleland, incidentally, lost his last election campaign, largely because of repeated attacks on his patriotism. Oh, and here's a quote about what sort of man is currently our Commander-in-Chief:

Lifelong Conservative Kevin Phillips on Bush's Service Record   PBS's "Now" Sept. 17, '04

"As far as I can tell, George W Bush, because of connections, was made a 2nd Lieutenant without having to go through all the military, ROTC-type experience or the classes, or anyting like that. And as a result, he's nominally a former officer in the American military, but he's a military illiterate; he has no idea of these things. And we have, for the first time in American history a president who's ...probably the first person by National Guard definitions to have been the equivalent of AWOL.
      Now, how can you send American kids over to Iraq with Humvees that aren't armored, without bullet proof vests, without decent arrangements for transportation and health, and do this when you were a guy who didn't show up for your own military training, didn't take the courses you have to take to be an officer in the U.S. services...I think this is an enormous issue."

Or here's an extended version of the type of men some of the people being discussed on this thread happen to be.

"Do You See A Pattern Here?

Democrats

Richard Gephardt
  Air National Guard, 1965-71.

David Bonior
  Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

Tom Daschle
  1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

Al Gore
  enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

Bob  Kerrey
  Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,  Vietnam.

Daniel Inouye
  Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

John Kerry
  Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.

Charles  Rangel
  Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

Max Cleland
  Captain,  Army 1965-68; Silver Star &  Bronze Star, Viet Nam.

Ted Kennedy
  Army, 1951-53.

Tom Harkin
  Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

Jack Reed
  Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army  Reserve 1979-91.

Fritz Hollings
  Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.

Leonard Boswell
  Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,  and Soldier's Medal.

Pete Peterson
  Air Force Captain, POW.  Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of  Merit.

Mike Thompson
  Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple  Heart.

Bill McBride
  Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.

Gray Davis
  Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.

Pete Stark
  Air Force 1955-57

Chuck Robb
  Vietnam

Howell Heflin
  Silver Star

George  McGovern
  Silver Star & DFC during WWII.

Bill Clinton
  Did  not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.

Jimmy Carter
  Seven years in the Navy.

Walter  Mondale
  Army 1951-1953

John Glenn
  WWII and Korea; six DFCs and  Air Medal  with 18Clusters.

Tom Lantos
  Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.


Republicans

Dick Cheney
  did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.

Dennis Hastert
  did not serve.

Tom Delay
  did not serve.

Roy Blunt
  did not serve.

Bill Frist
  did not serve.

Mitch McConnell
  did not serve.

Rick Santorum
  did not serve.

Trent Lott
  did not serve.

John  Ashcroft
  did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

Jeb  Bush
  did not serve.

Karl Rove
  did not serve.

Saxby  Chambliss
  did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.

Paul Wolfowitz
  did not serve.

Vin Weber
  did not serve.

Richard Perle
  did not serve.

Douglas Feith
  did not serve.

Eliot Abrams
  did not serve.

Richard  Shelby
  did not serve.

Jon Kyl
  did not serve.

Tim  Hutchison
  did not serve.

Christopher Cox
  did not serve.

Newt Gingrich
  did not serve.

Don Rumsfeld
  served in Navy (1954-57) as flight  instructor.

George W. Bush
  failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could  campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.

Ronald  Reagan
  due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.

B-1 Bob Dornan
  enlisted after fighting  was over in Korea.

Phil Gramm
  did not serve.

John McCain
  Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Dana Rohrabacher
  did not serve.

John M. McHugh
  did not serve.

JC Watts
  did not serve.

Jack Kemp
  did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.

Dan Quayle
  Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.

Rudy Giuliani
  did not serve.

George Pataki
  did not serve.

Spencer Abraham
  did not serve.

John  Engler
  did not serve.

Lindsey Graham
  National Guard  lawyer.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
  AWOL from Austrian army base.



Pundits  & Preachers

Sean Hannity
  did not serve.

Rush Limbaugh
  did not  serve (4-F  with a 'pilonidal cyst.')

Bill O'Reilly
  did not serve.

Michael Savage
  did not serve.

George Will
  did not serve.

Chris  Matthews
  did not serve.

Paul Gigot
  did not  serve.

Bill Bennett
  did  not serve.

Pat Buchanan
  did  not serve.

John Wayne
  did not  serve.

Bill Kristol
  did not serve.

Kenneth Starr
  did not serve.

Ralph Reed
  did not serve.

Michael Medved
  did not serve.

Charlie  Daniels
  did not serve.

Ted Nugent
  did not  serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

Supreme Court Justices

Antonin Scalia
  did not serve.

Clarence Thomas
  did not serve.


Maybe we could stop disrespecting all the vets, eh? Next time we're cranking up to go on a tear about lefties and libs, or we find ourselves saying that Democrats all hate their country?


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

nice find.  i, for once, learned something from a post you found.  gotta love that google.  how big is your hard drive anyway.  lol

as for the disrespecting, refer to page one, and take the blinders off.  the patriotic sarcasm is overwheling.  but of course, you'd never notice it.


----------



## Rick Wade (May 19, 2005)

I am currently stationed in Iraq and one of the hardest thing I had to do to date was that last goodbye (hopefully not final) to my family and my last request was that if something should happen to me do not change your opinion of the war just because I got killed.  Don't disrespect me and what I believe in, just because I got killed.  If you guys are going to argue over politics then so be it; do it somewhere else.  Those Marines have families; daughters and mothers, sons and wives.  Feel bad for them not the Marines honor those Men put them on a higher pedestal for without men and women willing to defend our country we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

V/R

Richard English
Chief Petty Officer 
U. S. NAVY


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Please, fill me in; why is that???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Army=Soldier
Marine Corps=Marines

That whole "rivalry" thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I am currently stationed in Iraq and one of the hardest thing I had to do to date was that last goodbye (hopefully not final) to my family and my last request was that if something should happen to me do not change your opinion of the war just because I got killed. Don't disrespect me and what I believe in, just because I got killed. If you guys are going to argue over politics then so be it; do it somewhere else. Those Marines have families; daughters and mothers, sons and wives. Feel bad for them not the Marines honor those Men put them on a higher pedestal for without men and women willing to defend our country we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
> 
> V/R
> 
> ...


Good Luck, Mr. English.

:asian:


----------



## Rick Wade (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Army=Soldier
> Marine Corps=Marines
> 
> That whole "rivalry" thing.



Let me amplify a little bit, if I may.

I have had the pleasure of working with the Marines allot in my Navy career.  Let me tell you they are all consummate professionals.

Professional looking they have the best uniforms.
Professional Killers they do it better than any other service as a hole.
And when you give a Marine an order it will get done no ifs ands or buts.  
I love the Marines.  No job to hard.
with all that being said I have also had the privilege of working with the other branches of service.  not always true with them.

Let me put it in a way you can understand.  

Now I know that Brother John Takes Kenpo specifically a member of the AKKI.

Now what If I came up to him and said something like "hey that's a nice TKD kick you got there or is that a Tracy Tech".  (ouch, sting)

Basically it is just hard to really explain unless your part of it.

Army = Soldiers
Navy = Sailors
Air Force = Airmen
Marine Corps = Marine

V/R

Rick


----------



## Rick Wade (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Good Luck, Mr. English.
> 
> :asian:



Thank you, 

    Luckly I have a job where I am not in harms way I happen to work in Al Faw Palace, but I do feel and hear explosions at least 3 to 4 times a week and I eat dinner with the guys going out on patrols and they just look beat down.  I pray for their safety ever night.  These guys are braver than most of you will ever know.  Just my 2 cents from Baghdad.

V/R

Rick


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

I was a "Soldier" but have nothing but respect for my countrymen in the Corps. Heres a great piece on what it means to be a Marine...

http://www.usmc-thebasicschool-1966.com/lore_articles/theheartofbeingmarine.htm



> All Marines die, in the red flash of battle or the white cold of the
> nursing home. In the vigor of youth or the infirmity of age all will
> eventually die, but the Marine Corps lives on. Every Marine who ever lived is living still, in the Marines who claim the title today. It is that sense of belonging to something that will outlive your own mortality that gives people a light to live by and a flame to mark their passing.
> 
> Marines call it esprit de corps!


 
Semper Fi


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Great Santini Eulogy

A great movie based on a real Marine...

COLONEL DON CONROY'S EULOGY, by his son Pat Conroy 



> You don't like war or violence? Or napalm? Or rockets? Or cannons or death rained down from the sky? Then let's talk about your fathers, not ours. When we talk about the aviators who raised us and the Marines who loved us, we can look you in the eye and say "you would not like to have been American's enemies when our fathers passed overhead". We were raised by the men who made the United States of America the safest country on earth in the bloodiest century in all recorded history. Our fathers made sacred those strange, singing names of battlefields across the Pacific: Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh and a thousand more. We grew up attending the funerals of Marines slain in these battles. Your fathers made communities like Beaufort decent and prosperous and functional; our fathers made the world safe for democracy.


...



> Let us leave you and say good-bye, Dad, with the passwords that bind all Marines and their wives and their children forever. The Corps was always the most important thing.
> 
> Semper Fi, Dad
> Semper Fi, O Great Santini.


----------



## BrandiJo (May 19, 2005)

i have my oldest counsin in the mariens, a friend in the navy and my best friends boy friend just got outta bagdad im proud of each and every one of them adn all teh people they served with and im sure if they were given the chance they would be in pics like those


----------



## jfarnsworth (May 19, 2005)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> ........ I eat dinner with the guys going out on patrols and they just look beat down.  I pray for their safety ever night.  These guys are braver than most of you will ever know.  Just my 2 cents from Baghdad.



 :asian: 
Tell them all to stay safe. :asian: 
 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Gotta love the Marines...

"They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"

-Col. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC

When the Marines were cut off behind enemy lines and the Army had written the 1st Marine Division off as being lost because they were surrounded by 22 enemy divisions. The Marines made it out inflicting the highest casualty ratio on an enemy in history and destroying 7 entire enemy divisions in the process. [An enemy division is 16500+ men while a Marine division is 12500 men]


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Great Santini Eulogy
> 
> A great movie based on a real Marine...
> 
> ...


Semper Fi.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

You can't help but be impressed by the bravery and loyalty. Remember, this is after weeks living in less-than-ideal conditions, and this attitude still wins out.


----------



## mj_lover (May 19, 2005)

random curiosity, why all the bickering about a show of dedication to comrades? these men and women are doing there duty. and i fully respect them, i would never be able to do it. i'm quite sure most of you would have hesitations when push comes to shove. 
end of random senseless rant
 :asian:  to all the men and women whoserve there country


----------



## dubljay (May 19, 2005)

I have nothing but a deep respect for those who willingly swear an oath to protect our country.  The way I see it is like this:  Regardless of politics related to this war, those who serving in the millitary, regardless of the reasons they joined in the first place, they are fighting to keep my family, friends, and myself safe.  The _least_ I can do for these brave souls is to give my thoughts and prayers for their safety, and to thank them and their family for the sacrafices they have made.  These men and women deserve gratitude and respect from *every* American citizen, for that is who they are wearing that uniform for, that is who they are bleeding for, that is who they have sacrificed for.

 :asian:

 -Joshua


----------



## Michael Billings (May 19, 2005)

I never saw a lack of respect on this thread.  The tragic sacrifices all soldiers (and civilians) have made for their country merits nothing but the deepest respect and honor.

 It looks like the political agenda almost got drug into this thread, but y'all did an excellent job of bringing it back around to the original topic.  Please don't pollute this threat with political opinions regard the morality of war.  If you want to go there, start another thread as this thread should not be hijacked as it is demeaning to the spirit of the original intent in honoring our fallen ones.

 Respectfully,
 -Michael


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

Nice job rmcrobertson.  

 It takes a big man to try and turn a thread respecting Marines into a place for bashing the current administration and conservatives in general. 


  You should be proud.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Nice job rmcrobertson.
> 
> It takes a big man to try and turn a thread respecting Marines into a place for bashing the current administration and conservatives in general.
> 
> ...


People's feelings are very complex regarding this issue.  It sometimes can be diffitcult to separate and filter various components.  And I think that it is impossible to do so for some...therefore the only option is to not post.

In a very real sense, what has been demanded is self-censorship and that is as American as apple pie, unfortunately.


----------



## Blind (May 20, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> I have nothing but a deep respect for those who willingly swear an oath to protect our country. The way I see it is like this: Regardless of politics related to this war, those who serving in the millitary, regardless of the reasons they joined in the first place, they are fighting to keep my family, friends, and myself safe. The _least_ I can do for these brave souls is to give my thoughts and prayers for their safety, and to thank them and their family for the sacrafices they have made. These men and women deserve gratitude and respect from *every* American citizen, for that is who they are wearing that uniform for, that is who they are bleeding for, that is who they have sacrificed for.
> 
> :asian:
> 
> -Joshua


I would totally agree with you if I could see how the deaths of those dying are of benefit to *every American citizen.* Or any American citizen not related to the oil industry for that matter, unless of course you care to come out and say it is an act of aggression on another country to preserve the American way of life??


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

Blind said:
			
		

> I would totally agree with you if I could see how the deaths of those dying are of benefit to *every American citizen.* Or any American citizen not related to the oil industry for that matter, unless of course you care to come out and say it is an act of aggression on another country to preserve the American way of life??


 Well...  "Spreading Democracy" right?  And Democracy makes the decissions in the States right?  So Democracy must have decided this was in everyones best interest right?

 /sarcasim

 Whether or not we believe in the reasons behind the war, that is what those people do.  They fight, unquestioning, when the government tells them too.  They put there lives on the line so that the rest of us don't have too.  They work together and bond in ways that go beyond what anyone in a nice safe office will ever understand.

 Whether you, or I, or anyone believe the government is wrong in starting this war in no way effects the respect these people deserve for doing this job.  They are there to give there lives if neccessary to protect us, and fight for us.  And what is best for us is decided by the government, and they cannot question that, otherwise they are not doing there job.

 If the government is not acting in what we believe to be our best interest that is where Democracy "should" kick in and changes made.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 20, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> those Marines are American hero's. God bless their souls. it's a shame to see that their actions are not respected, even if you don't believe in them. those boys are more American than half the folks on this board. like it or not.
> 
> @ Phantom: enjoy the freedom you have to desecrate their actions. it's because of actions like this in our nation's history that you have such a right.
> 
> i don't see any agenda behind the posting of such graphic happenings. and if such a thing exists, it is paying homage and tribute to the American Soldier and what they stand for.


I am aware of how the men and women of the military protect our freedoms, and I very much appreciate their sacrifices.  At no point did I say otherwise.  What I did say was that it's unfortunate that they had to be there to make such sacrifice, because their reason for being there isn't deserving of such sacrifice on their part.  

If pointing out the fact that their very noble sacrifices were necessitated by very ignoble circumstances is a desecration of their actions, then I would suggest that you reconsider how much you actually value their sacrifices and roles in protecting the nation.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 20, 2005)

Oh yeah, and to all those who dinged me for my posts, please keep them coming.  I need to balance out the green on my User CP with the red.  Christmas is only 7 months away, after all.  :asian:


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People's feelings are very complex regarding this issue. It sometimes can be diffitcult to separate and filter various components. And I think that it is impossible to do so for some...therefore the only option is to not post.
> 
> In a very real sense, what has been demanded is self-censorship and that is as American as apple pie, unfortunately.


 Liberals good, conservatives evil.

 You are right, very complex.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Liberals good, conservatives evil.
> 
> You are right, very complex.


That isn't what I'm saying at all.  What I am pointing out is that there is social pressure for self-censoship in order to create a certain product.  In essence, one is demanding the whole belief from some and the parts that agree from others and none at all from some.  

The only result that can come from this is a charicature of people's feelings regarding our soldiers and the war in which they are involved.  The cartoon looks good and feels good, but in no way does it reflect reality.  

Many people's feelings about the subject of this thread are complex and cannot easily be sifted and differentiated.  Be an American and speak your mind.  Why let this thread become a silly peice of patriotic propaganda by demanding that everyone share only certain feelings?  

This isn't PravdaTalk...btw.


----------



## DavidCC (May 20, 2005)

Marines don't die, they just go to Hell and regroup.


----------



## Rick Wade (May 20, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I am aware of how the men and women of the military protect our freedoms, and I very much appreciate their sacrifices.  At no point did I say otherwise.  What I did say was that it's unfortunate that they had to be there to make such sacrifice, because their reason for being there isn't deserving of such sacrifice on their part.
> 
> If pointing out the fact that their very noble sacrifices were necessitated by very ignoble circumstances is a desecration of their actions, then I would suggest that you reconsider how much you actually value their sacrifices and roles in protecting the nation.




    First of all I respect your opinion I don't agree with it, but I respect it.  I didn't ding your reputation what I would like to see is this conveersation be moved somewhere elese and reference this thread because this thread should be about those Marines in the photo not whether we agree with the president or not.

Please keep this thread on topic (what does all those elected officials and there military background have to do with those Marines)

V/R

Rick English


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I would like to see is this conveersation be moved somewhere elese and reference this thread because this thread should be about those Marines in the photo not whether we agree with the president or not.
> 
> Please keep this thread on topic (what does all those elected officials and there military background have to do with those Marines)


 Maybe a moderator would do the honors and seperate that into a new thread?  It may make for a interesting discussion, but I don't think many will bite on it in this thread as it is off topic and takes away from the purpose of this thread....


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa, 

   I wasn't saying that was your thought process, I was actualy thinking of someone else.



> what does all those elected officials and there military background have to do with those Marines


  Absolutely nothing, unless you have an agenda.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> upnorthkyosa,
> 
> I wasn't saying that was your thought process, I was actualy thinking of someone else.
> 
> Absolutely nothing, unless you have an agenda.


I thought that since you quoted me...oh well...no big deal.


----------



## dubljay (May 21, 2005)

Blind said:
			
		

> I would totally agree with you if I could see how the deaths of those dying are of benefit to *every American citizen.* Or any American citizen not related to the oil industry for that matter, unless of course you care to come out and say it is an act of aggression on another country to preserve the American way of life??


 My point is this:  These men and women joined the millitary.  They did not have to join.  Regardless of the war they are involved in, regardless of the reasons they joined in the first place, these men and women put their lives on the line for us.  If you can't respect someone for that, then well to be honest I don't think much of you as a person.  It is that plain and simple.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

I don't suppose it's ever occured to anybody that there's something wrong with using the fact that brave men and women are fighting for us, out in deserts, to make points and justify personal insults on a silly Internet forum?


----------



## Jaymeister (May 21, 2005)

Each and everyone of those men and women deserve our respect :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

Really? Gosh, I hadn't known. 

Does anybody ever wonder why that obvious point needs to be repeated so often, and used as a club against anybody who thinks this stupid war was a bad idea? 

I know, I know...it's the Liberal Conspiracy. So does anybody ever wonder where that fantasy came from, or why we should revere the scummy likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who never did squat for their country except make a ton of money screaming that anybody they don't agree with is a traitor?


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

People should be reminded daily that Americans are giving their lives in service to our country...that you seem to have a problem with that is telling.

"People dont need to be constantly reminded" but I suppose that if the deaths are being used to advance a political agenda thats OK...:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

That's nonsense, and repressive nonsense at that.

But then, I thought this was a democratic country. 

Hey, here's a question: what do you call a country where the government and its minions spend all their time worrying over whether everybody's waving the flag enough? One where any time somebody says, "Gee, maybe that war was a bad idea," fifteen groundless accusations that they've attacked the military and hate their country appear? One where people spend all this time and energy scrutinizing their fellow citizens for signs of disloyalty?


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

Hmm..I showed some pictures of brave Marines sacrificing their lives for one another..If you dont want to see or hear it dont look. If you dont need reminding...leave. You seem to spend a lot of time and typing trying to stiffle my freedom of speech....

People should be reminded every day that Americans are sacrificing their lives for our country. That you seem to have such a problem with that is telling.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

That has absolutely zip to do with anything I wrote, or anything anybody else wrote on this thread, and you know it.


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

I know no such thing. All I see is "I DONT NEED TO BE CONSTANTLY REMINDED". Fine, bye....


----------



## Marginal (May 21, 2005)

Tgace:





> I know no such thing. All I see is "I DONT NEED TO BE CONSTANTLY REMINDED". Fine, bye....



Not Tgace:





> I wouldn't be suprised if a few choice individuals who frequent this board will have less than venerating coments about them though.



With inflamatory rhetoric like this popping up three posts after the pictures on page one, it's hard to be surprised that countercommentary related to the comment, and unrelated to the sarifice of the marines arose.

To be expected when words are put onto the mouths of others.


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

Im just responding to what was stated (he typed that not me). The other quote wasnt mine so I cant answer for it.....he was proven right though wasnt he?


----------



## Bammx2 (May 21, 2005)

Ya know,I have spent a very large portion of my life around the military and even did a stint myself.

Some of the people that I met and known in the past who DID seve,were not all "patriotic",in the general sense.
But almost all of them did have one common thread....
Now this example may torque some people a bit,but think before you react...please.
Some of these people had the attitude of the french foriegn legionaires.
The legion is NOT the fench army.They do NOT fight for france......THEY fight for each other.

Regardless of what country they represent....once you get into battle,the guys with you litterally become "you comrades at arms".
They ALL become "legionares".
When that first bullet whizzes past your head,or THROUGH your buddies head,you have a tendancy to forget all the "patriotic" stuff you pledged too at the MEPS station back in "podunk,ohio"(and I am from ohio!) and suddenly,you find yourself fighting to get your brothers back home safely and they are doing the same for you.
And right now...no,these people are NOT fighting for america,they are fighting for the "freedom" of the iraqi people.Americans are already free.
So when is all said and done.....
In the heat of battle,its not about "patiotism" as we see it,its about the guy to your left and the guy to your right.Not an ideal.THIS is real.
They fight for each other and all they ask for in return is to drink a beer with the guys who saved thier lives....and to drink a beer for the ones who didn't make it back.
Why?
Because thats what a soldier does.
Thats thier "patiotism".
Thier "legion of brothers".

:asian:


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

Truth

People join for different reasons than they fight, or sacrifice their lives. That letter from the Vietnam Vet Marine a page or so back illustrates that perfectly.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> That has absolutely zip to do with anything I wrote, or anything anybody else wrote on this thread, and you know it.



actually, nothing you wrote has anything to do with the topic of this thread, and you know it.  take your slanted politics elsewhere.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 21, 2005)

I don't see anything wrong with expressing respect for the men's courage and anger/outrage at how it is being put to use.  I'm not going to separate these emotions and post a lie to conform to someones version of reality.  The above post is a perfect example of the demand for self-censorship that I was talking about earlier.  I'm sorry, but you just can't make someone feel the same way about this issue as you might feel.  

The bottom line is that a lot of people are very angry about this and if that anger somehow disturbs the purity of the sentiment, then it probably wasn't that pure to begin with.  And it never can be "pure" in the sense that one can make people's anger about this war "go away".

For some, those pictures are showing good brave men dying needlessly.  Even if you disagree, you have to at least be able to see the sincerity of this anger?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

I have to say i resoect the people in our armed services. Remember it is a volunteer section-for now. They have a job to do, that I dont know if I can do it.


Best wishes upon them.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2005)

If I may... I have been watching this thread and it is a bit heated.

 The issue I see here, although it is not being articulated 100% clearly, I think the point is visible if you look...

 This thread was started to "showcase" the valor of our fighting men and women, but quickly it was picked up on and used as an additional platform for the people who so venomously oppose the President and his War that they will use any reference to it as an excuse to speak out about their political adgenda against him, which in turn, caused the people who rally around his banner to respond in kind... turning this thread into another useles debate about "who's opinion is right".

 I think that in the case of a thread designed to Honor the Fighting Men and Women who do their job, the thread SHOULD be left at that.

 There is nothing wrong with expressing your opinion AGAINST the war... but do it in the correct threads.  Think how you would feel, if you started a thread about, say a beloved martial arts instructor who died, and instead of respectful comments some joker came in and said "Its a shame he died, but he shouldnt have been teaching anyhow..."  Please bear in mind that many of the people making these posts are Ex Military themselves and feel a great deal of Pride and Companionship with these soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen who are there every day, even tho they do not know them personally... so it is a very personal issue to them, and not the right place to wave your banner and scream.  Its like that picture floating around the Net of the guy standing at the back of the womens rights rally with the sign that says something like "*****, go make me a sandwitch"... it doesnt belong there.

 On that note, I am gonna be late for class this morning if I dont leave in the next 2 minutes.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> If I may... I have been watching this thread and it is a bit heated.
> 
> The issue I see here, although it is not being articulated 100% clearly, I think the point is visible if you look...
> 
> ...


Instead of 5 Stars...I give you..:asian::asian::asian::asian::asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

Actually--and the point was made by someone else on this page--the thread did NOT start out as a simple tribute. It started out when posters a) posted pictures, b) threw in a coupla slams on anybody who might possibly perhaps fall short of jumping up to salute the United States of Rush Limbaugh fast enough for their taste, c) some of us were dumb enough to respond. 

After that, it turned into the usual attempts at bullying. I dislike bullying.

I suggest a little less worrying about what type of men THEY are--they seem to be doin' just fine--and a little more worrying about what type of men WE are.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually--and the point was made by someone else on this page--the thread did NOT start out as a simple tribute. It started out when posters a) posted pictures, b) threw in a coupla slams on anybody who might possibly perhaps fall short of jumping up to salute the United States of Rush Limbaugh fast enough for their taste, c) some of us were dumb enough to respond.
> 
> After that, it turned into the usual attempts at bullying. I dislike bullying.
> 
> I suggest a little less worrying about what type of men THEY are--they seem to be doin' just fine--and a little more worrying about what type of men WE are.


We are the type who worry about the type that have more sake of worry. I mean, i would want people to be concerened about my status in a place where the chances are death are so great.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually--and the point was made by someone else on this page--the thread did NOT start out as a simple tribute. It started out when posters a) posted pictures, b) threw in a coupla slams on anybody who might possibly perhaps fall short of jumping up to salute the United States of Rush Limbaugh fast enough for their taste, c) some of us were dumb enough to respond.
> 
> After that, it turned into the usual attempts at bullying. I dislike bullying.
> 
> I suggest a little less worrying about what type of men THEY are--they seem to be doin' just fine--and a little more worrying about what type of men WE are.


 Uh huh, sure.

 I suggest you go back and read post number... Uh, oh yeah, TWO... where the poster used the initial post as an excuse to voice his political opposition to the war, and his subsequent follow up post in response to the question of "you just had to do that" with an affirmative before you open your mouth and claim its all about Rush Limbaugh


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Uh huh, sure.
> 
> I suggest you go back and read post number... Uh, oh yeah, TWO... where the poster used the initial post as an excuse to voice his political opposition to the war, and his subsequent follow up post in response to the question of "you just had to do that" with an affirmative before you open your mouth and claim its all about Rush Limbaugh


If this thread is a about simple respect for brave men who died, perhaps the Study is the wrong place for it.

However, I believe that expressing your honor and patriotism without being angry at the situation in which these men are involved could be construed as a political statement.  Think tacit agreement.

The road goes both ways.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

1. I took "post # 2," as a simple remark about the choices that have to be made in wartime. Why did you leap to take it as anything else?

2. And I suggest that YOU go back and read the post immediately following it, which dragged everything out of a general and political arena into the arena of the personal.

3. Why not simply consider considering what sort of men WE are, since--as I noted--those Marines seem to be doing just fine?

4. It's difficult to open one's mouth on the Internet.


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

"Doing just Fine"? Theyre dying in service to our country. And some people dont want to be "reminded" of it...:shrug:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Doing just Fine"? Theyre dying in service to our country. And some people dont want to be "reminded" of it...:shrug:


I am "constantly" reminded and it doesn't make me any less angry about the situation these marines are in.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I took "post # 2," as a simple remark about the choices that have to be made in wartime. Why did you leap to take it as anything else?


 I didn't.  Someone Else did, and Random Phantom confirmed that he was correct.  So as much as you would like to argue ANYTHING to the contrary, you would be WRONG.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. And I suggest that YOU go back and read the post immediately following it, which dragged everything out of a general and political arena into the arena of the personal.


 I agree, but that is NOT where it started to go off track.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Why not simply consider considering what sort of men WE are, since--as I noted--those Marines seem to be doing just fine?


 I have considered what kind of man YOU are, but unfortunatly I cannot post about that here any longer.  I got a great laugh out of your MA videoclip tho.  

 As far as what kind of man I am, Ive considered that at length as well, and all I can say is that while I have a lot of room for improvement, I could have turned out a hell of a lot worse.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. It's difficult to open one's mouth on the Internet.


 Smartass.  You know exactly what I meant.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If this thread is a about simple respect for brave men who died, perhaps the Study is the wrong place for it.
> 
> However, I believe that expressing your honor and patriotism without being angry at the situation in which these men are involved could be construed as a political statement. Think tacit agreement.
> 
> The road goes both ways.


 You can be angry without having to express it every time the subject is brought up.  You know, the "If you cant say somthing nice, dont say anything at all" rule could be used in some of these situations.  

 Imagine if Bush suddenly died of a heart attack, and it was posted here... while many people on this board dislike, no, hate the man, Posting artyon: in the thread about his death would simply be tacky and inappropriate.  A separate thread should be made for that.  

 I'm so glad this point had to be made and refuted so I could get dragged into the argument.  Next time, I'll just find a Mod who is not involved to tell you people to stay on topic... I'm DONE in this thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

I am sorry, T'punk, that you feel so strapped for arguments and evidence that you must rely on personal insults.

That will end my participation in this thread.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

I dont care about why they are there. I care when will end and those that served their tour, should be allowed to come home. war has always been tied to either religion or politics. To which the military has to suffer. but, hey, this is what a military is for-war.


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

Americans who have never had a problem with the place of Warriors in their culture, or how they should be viewed, treated or thought of....The Native Americans.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/nativeamerican01/warrior.html



> As As the 20th century comes to a close, there are nearly 190,00 Native American military veterans. It is well recognized that, historically, Native Americans have the highest record of service per capita when compared to other ethnic groups. The reasons behind this disproportionate contribution are complex and deeply rooted in traditional American Indian culture. In many respects, Native Americans are no different from others who volunteer for military service. They do, however, have distinctive cultural values which drive them to serve their country. One such value is their proud warrior tradition.


----------



## arnisador (May 22, 2005)

I think we're just arguing about arguing now.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You can be angry without having to express it every time the subject is brought up. You know, the "If you cant say somthing nice, dont say anything at all" rule could be used in some of these situations.


Sometimes saying nothing is saying something...

I'm going to follow Robert's lead.  Arnisador is right.

Mr. English (and others) I respect your service and your will to give your lives for our country.  Your intent is honorable.  I question the mission...


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

Question the mission but not the men


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Question the mission but not the men


I 100% agree.  I wish I would have said that much earlier.


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Question the mission but not the men


:asian:


----------



## TonyM. (May 25, 2005)

Got here late. This type of heroic behavior on the part of the marines is so typical that many folks are used to it and expect it.  In Vietnam many battles were won by the marines with hand me down gear from the army and sometimes Korean war vintage. Typically the army would show up late and take credit. As a Ranger we were amused by all the political posturing, and the marines liked us. Never could understand why the DOD treated them like second class soldiers.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Gotta love the Marines...
> 
> "They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"
> 
> ...


Hey like to see that. Got any reports and things of it?
Kind Regards


----------



## Tgace (May 25, 2005)

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/chosin.htm


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 25, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Got here late. This type of heroic behavior on the part of the marines is so typical that many folks are used to it and expect it. In Vietnam many battles were won by the marines with hand me down gear from the army and sometimes Korean war vintage. Typically the army would show up late and take credit. As a Ranger we were amused by all the political posturing, and the marines liked us. Never could understand why the DOD treated them like second class soldiers.


Well, I dont care if they were Marines, Rangers, Navy, Army, etc., in war they all die the same.


----------



## TonyM. (May 26, 2005)

No arguement from me. I think war is a bad thing.


----------

