Iraq Resolution Smezolution... send in the Marines
-
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the president's constitutional ability to "declare war" and the congress' vested duty to "raise and support armies", in the Marine Corps Act of 1798 congress gave the president the ability to task the Marines with "any duty on shore as the President, at his discretion, may see fit". The intent was to create a force that would be ready to sail at a moment's notice and respond to world troublespots without relying on the Army, and by such creating a force that would not compete with the Army. The primary motivator at the time was to use the Marines to protect naval commerce from the Barbery pirates and French Privateers without going to war with them (For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war -- unlike modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them). Ahh, my drill instructors would be proud that I'm still brainwashed well trained and can remember this stuff. Semper Fi, Ritch PS- If you think America does some really nasty things in foreign countries now, we've got nothing on the late eighteen hundreds up to WW I. Check out Maverick Marine and Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket It always seem we use military might at selfish times for selfish reasons, or in the case of WWII, long after we should have for different, but still selfish, reasons.
-
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the president's constitutional ability to "declare war" and the congress' vested duty to "raise and support armies", in the Marine Corps Act of 1798 congress gave the president the ability to task the Marines with "any duty on shore as the President, at his discretion, may see fit". The intent was to create a force that would be ready to sail at a moment's notice and respond to world troublespots without relying on the Army, and by such creating a force that would not compete with the Army. The primary motivator at the time was to use the Marines to protect naval commerce from the Barbery pirates and French Privateers without going to war with them (For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war -- unlike modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them). Ahh, my drill instructors would be proud that I'm still brainwashed well trained and can remember this stuff. Semper Fi, Ritch PS- If you think America does some really nasty things in foreign countries now, we've got nothing on the late eighteen hundreds up to WW I. Check out Maverick Marine and Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket It always seem we use military might at selfish times for selfish reasons, or in the case of WWII, long after we should have for different, but still selfish, reasons.
I thought we had already agreed that Sadam and Dubya were going to play Action Half-Life[^] with just knives to decide who wins?
as long as I live it will be fine / there's nothing what I can do /
the world will die and so do I / so why should I take care
'Take Care' Funker Vogt -
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the president's constitutional ability to "declare war" and the congress' vested duty to "raise and support armies", in the Marine Corps Act of 1798 congress gave the president the ability to task the Marines with "any duty on shore as the President, at his discretion, may see fit". The intent was to create a force that would be ready to sail at a moment's notice and respond to world troublespots without relying on the Army, and by such creating a force that would not compete with the Army. The primary motivator at the time was to use the Marines to protect naval commerce from the Barbery pirates and French Privateers without going to war with them (For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war -- unlike modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them). Ahh, my drill instructors would be proud that I'm still brainwashed well trained and can remember this stuff. Semper Fi, Ritch PS- If you think America does some really nasty things in foreign countries now, we've got nothing on the late eighteen hundreds up to WW I. Check out Maverick Marine and Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket It always seem we use military might at selfish times for selfish reasons, or in the case of WWII, long after we should have for different, but still selfish, reasons.
Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket Kinda interesting to hear him argue against getting involved in World War II, saying things like, "Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese." Poor Imperial Japan. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the president's constitutional ability to "declare war" and the congress' vested duty to "raise and support armies", in the Marine Corps Act of 1798 congress gave the president the ability to task the Marines with "any duty on shore as the President, at his discretion, may see fit". The intent was to create a force that would be ready to sail at a moment's notice and respond to world troublespots without relying on the Army, and by such creating a force that would not compete with the Army. The primary motivator at the time was to use the Marines to protect naval commerce from the Barbery pirates and French Privateers without going to war with them (For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war -- unlike modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them). Ahh, my drill instructors would be proud that I'm still brainwashed well trained and can remember this stuff. Semper Fi, Ritch PS- If you think America does some really nasty things in foreign countries now, we've got nothing on the late eighteen hundreds up to WW I. Check out Maverick Marine and Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket It always seem we use military might at selfish times for selfish reasons, or in the case of WWII, long after we should have for different, but still selfish, reasons.
Very interesting. Very true. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket Kinda interesting to hear him argue against getting involved in World War II, saying things like, "Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese." Poor Imperial Japan. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: Poor Imperial Japan. But you have to wonder, would Japan have attached Pearl Harbour if the government of the day did not have anti-Japan policies to begin with? Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
-
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the president's constitutional ability to "declare war" and the congress' vested duty to "raise and support armies", in the Marine Corps Act of 1798 congress gave the president the ability to task the Marines with "any duty on shore as the President, at his discretion, may see fit". The intent was to create a force that would be ready to sail at a moment's notice and respond to world troublespots without relying on the Army, and by such creating a force that would not compete with the Army. The primary motivator at the time was to use the Marines to protect naval commerce from the Barbery pirates and French Privateers without going to war with them (For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war -- unlike modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them). Ahh, my drill instructors would be proud that I'm still brainwashed well trained and can remember this stuff. Semper Fi, Ritch PS- If you think America does some really nasty things in foreign countries now, we've got nothing on the late eighteen hundreds up to WW I. Check out Maverick Marine and Major General Butler's small treatise War is a Racket It always seem we use military might at selfish times for selfish reasons, or in the case of WWII, long after we should have for different, but still selfish, reasons.
Richard Melton wrote: For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war Perahps than in 1798 USA wanted to keep a potential alliance with a foe of UK (= ennemies of my enemies are my friends) Richard Melton wrote: [...]modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them Oh, so few :rolleyes: Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
Brit wrote: Poor Imperial Japan. But you have to wonder, would Japan have attached Pearl Harbour if the government of the day did not have anti-Japan policies to begin with? Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Mr Morden wrote: would Japan have attached Pearl Harbour if the government of the day did not have anti-Japan policies to begin with? Japan attacked British forces a few hours before Pearl harbour , it was not an attack on the US alone , it was an attack on all the foreign forces in the pacific area in an attempt to gain access to the raw materials of the area . The idea was to destroy the American fleet at the same time as invading much of Oceania/Asia and by doing so reduce the ability of the USA to intervene in the prime aim of obtaining access to the raw materials . Japan had embarked on its expansionist policies many years earlier with the invasion of China , the push to get raw materials was the next logical step . The only thing that stood in their way was possible US interference and the presence of British troops . It turned out that their thinking was half right , they did largely outfight the British troops , but the gamble of forcing the USA to keep out of the war by obliterating the pacific fleet did not work . Domestic US politics may have played a part , but the US was prooving itself to be very non commital to the war , supplying economic Aid to the UK , but largly sitting on the sidelines . The Japanese thinking was probably more influenced by the USA not committing to the war and demonstrating its desire for peace rather than any minor inconvinience of domestic policy notbacked up by militaru force . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
Brit wrote: Poor Imperial Japan. But you have to wonder, would Japan have attached Pearl Harbour if the government of the day did not have anti-Japan policies to begin with? Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
We had anti-Japanese policies because they were already engaged in aggressive military actions in the region - particularly against China. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Richard Melton wrote: For whatever reason, we didn't want to really piss off France by declaring war Perahps than in 1798 USA wanted to keep a potential alliance with a foe of UK (= ennemies of my enemies are my friends) Richard Melton wrote: [...]modern times where we delibertly piss them off by ignoring them Oh, so few :rolleyes: Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
Karl wrote: Perahps than in 1798 USA wanted to keep a potential alliance with a foe of UK (= ennemies of my enemies are my friends) That or the fact that the French could have kicked the USA's butt at that time.
-
Karl wrote: Perahps than in 1798 USA wanted to keep a potential alliance with a foe of UK (= ennemies of my enemies are my friends) That or the fact that the French could have kicked the USA's butt at that time.
They still could - reports have been coming in for months of large sightings of onion and garlic salesmen massing on the atlantic coast, ringing their bicycle bells to the tune of "Uncle Sam Comes To Town" (sorry, I mean the American National Anthem)! :wtf: :)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Save a tapestry, eat a cat