Marine Life

Dud Doodoo wrote:Active police work isn't war. We fight criminals, not a country with defined borders, civilian population, or regular army.

Did we fight a country in the Vietnam War?

I guess I have to play peacekeeper. I can see where pie dude is comin from. The taliban did and still has an army. But Ruski is saying that we declared war on a group not a country. So technically we declared war but we didn't. Its kinda confusing. This is what happens when two people with strong opinions debate. Notice I said debate not bicker.

No no we are at war. The war in afghanistan, the war on terror, whatever you want to call it. We're at war though.

hence why I rate the National Defense Ribbon which is awarded for enlisting during a time of war.

and why the army isn't allowed to roll their sleeves up (they can only roll sleeved during time of peace)

what if it's hot outside?

Gauz wrote:what if it's hot outside?

Gauz has got a point

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:

Gauz wrote:what if it's hot outside?

Gauz has got a point

If its hot? Well to bad then, they're marines not bitches.

Death no more wrote:

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:

Gauz wrote:what if it's hot outside?

Gauz has got a point

If its hot? Well to bad then, they're marines not bitches.

You don't understand


If marines wont be bitches, then heat sure as well will be a bitch.

He said "Army" not "Marines".

I don't know if the Marines can roll their sleeves up at all, but he specifically said the Army couldn't.

the marines HAVE to roll their sleeves up during the summer season when not in a hostile country.

Alright.

A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

TNine wrote:A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

Now that depends on what you mean by "winning".

If you mean "Complete annihilation of the Enemy" then yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, we could still pull a Vietnam, and declare victory (which Mr. Bush technically already did, about 7 years ago) and leave the country, only to have the force we were fighting come back into power immediately.

Iraq and Afganistan can still (and for Iraq, almost certainly will) be lost, which is why people shouldn't fall into a comfortable state of mind on the war, as you have.

All the moneymakers want is Iran... We tried to screw them over *cough*assassination*cough* and they resisted. So, the U.S. wanted control of Afghanistan so they could take Iran (and also cuz we wanted to get rid of the Taliban and help Afghan out).

Then how do you explain invading Iraq instead?