Pippin-I'm not saying they don't see combat.  I'm saying that, according to their charter, they are not part of the military.  That's all.

Second.  For Crumbso.
Quote:

Mandatory enlistment in the military would not be in violation of the First Amendment and "Freedom of Choice", because the choice being referred to is that of your religion.  The logic behind your analogy would mandate that criminals not be required to go to jail, despite being convicted, because they choose not to go to jail.  Not going to happen.

Quote:

This is not an example of anything discussed in this thread.  Of course, the leader of a nation does, and should, have the right to declare a state of emergency.

Quote:

The reason we suggested mandatory military enlistment was not solely for the purpose of defending our country.  It was also mentioned for the purposes of instilling some sense of responsibility, teamwork, leadership, and discipline in those who enlist.  While yes, the Coast Guard does these things, there are plenty of services which don't.  By saying it doesn't have to be military service would be counterproductive.

Quote:

Yes, it is.  The military is in place for one reason and one reason only.  Self defense.  I'd like to hear an example of when it was used for something else. 



Again for Crumbso.  Your reference to this current war did not go unnoticed, even though I can be very dense at times.

Quote:


This is not an equal representation of my A, B, C analogy, for a few reasons. 

1)  C is not, in this case, defending another country.  C is defending itself after a direct hit on its own soil.  (September 11th has been linked directly to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden multiple times.  Financial support, as well as training facilities, have been found in both Iraq and Afghanistan.)

2)  The United Nations passed several resolutions to disarm Saddam Hussein, none of  which have any indication that Hussein followed them, because he would not let anyone into his country, which was also in violation of the resolutions.

3)  President Clinton also bombed Iraq during his 8 year administration, and by his own admission, he wasn't sure that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs. 

Noooooo, Crumbso...this isn't me all riled up.  lol  I'm perfectly calm.  Personally, I LOVE opposing viewpoints.  I've said it here many, many times.  I'd much rather have people disagree with me, because at least then I know they're paying attention!  So please, until a moderator deems this thread political and locks it up, share your opinions, even if they're wrong!  (I'm so joking when I say that!)

Okay, so now for my (perfectly calm) rebuttal.

[qutoe]The US has been thought by the rest of the world to have been used in an illegitamate way. The last time the ICJ (International Court of Jutice) judged illegitimate U.S. intervention in a civil war (that in Nicaragua), the United States government simply ignored it. [/quote]

That may or may not be the case, I don't know about Nicaragua.  However, the rest of the world needs to remember that we as a nation do not NEED their approval to do ANYTHING.  We were attacked almost two years ago, and we've finally got leadership in place that has what it takes to stand up and say "STOPPIT!"

Quote:


Mistake or not, that's the decision which has been committed to by our leadership.  One thing you learn in the military is that the definition of "discipline" is (Say it with me OTTOL):

DISCIPLINE IS THE INSTANT WILLINGNESS AND OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS.

This means that sure, mistakes might be made.  But it's not my job, as a Marine, or as an American, to question those decisions, for they've been made with far more  knowledge on the subject than I'll EVER have.  They've been made for a reason, and that reason might just be to save my life.  That's good enough for me.

There are two objectives to the Marine Corps, and they are, in this order:

1.  Mission accomplishment.
2.  Troop welfare.

They have to be done in this order, because if you worry about what LCpl. Jones is thinking, you could get the rest of your fire team killed.

Second, as Americans, our lives, and those of our families ARE in danger.  This has been proven time and time again by radical fundamentalists who disapprove of our philosphies, and the only way they see fit to solve the differences is to irradicate our very existance.

Cases in point.

1.  Lebanon, 18 April 83-A car bomb detonates killing 61 people, including 17 Americans.  Islamic fundamentalists claim responsibility.

2.  September 11, 2001-19 Islamic terrorists hijack four commercial airliners and kill nearly 3,000 people.  While no responsibility has been claimed, there have been direct links to both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

We ARE in danger.  It's no longer an issue for foreign soil to resolve.  It's on our backdoor.  If we don't stop it now, it will get into the house and all hell will break loose.

I am agreeing with OTTOL here.  Hyperions statement about blind obidience does have a place in the military.  In the rest of the world we need to be questioning our elected representitives constantly.  We need them to account for every decision that they make and ensure that if they make the wrong ones they don't get a second chance.

Will

I see your point Loomex, but at least it is vaguely linked to the topic and it has not digresed to food yet, which is what usually happens...

Will

LMAO
Will, I swear I didn't read your last post until I had made mine. (We must have been typing at the same time!) Quote:

I'm going with the latter!!

Except in homage to the fallen.