Ron Paul warns us again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
[QUOTEWell they could always bring back conscription. Call it the "immigration reform act of 2005" and offer 20 dollars an hour to anyone that will volunteer to serve as mercenaries. Lets see if Mexicans really will do the jobs Americans dont want.
][/QUOTE]

Joking or not a good point, solve two problems at once, I'm guessing the flow back south would be huge. Either way the draft will be used again they have no choice.
 
WT said:
Same thing with the USAF. They wanted to field an USAF airborne infantry regiment last year. Even came out with a snazzy blue cammie uniform.

What's your source on that?

There were several reasons for trying out a new BDU uniform, but none of them had anything to do with a USAF 'infantry regiment'.
 
I doubt if you will see an outright "invasion" of either Syria or Iran by the US or even a coalition of nations. I don't think we can afford it. We still have a choice. Look at the earthquake relief business in Pakistan... UN is asking for lots of money now (ie quickly) to be donated. Everyone is tapped out including the US. People are protecting and supporting their own. Off subject, but I don't understand why Pakistan doesn't just borrrow the money rather than asking for handouts... that is what the US does and did?? I put the responsibility on them, not the so called corrupt UN (United Nations). Pakistan's first responsiblity is to its people. Ever see the member nations united in anything?

You may see some focused strikes by air or by special forces though. I would imagine the special forces people are already in both places to some degree. These strikes will likely focus on special people (leaders) and special industries or infrastructure such as nuclear, air power, and offensive military capabilities. Israel will be involved this time. Give it 10-years and Iraq will be involved.
 
Hack - there was an article last year on military.com. The USAF was looking into forming a Ranger style regiment, jump qualified, to seize and protect air fields. The AF has so many guys with nothing to do and with cutbacks looming, had to find something to keep up staffing ...... and funding.

Last week there was another article dealing with AF on the ground in Iraq-Kuwait, driving supply trucks, etc. for the Army.
 
Waitone said:
We are continually fighting terrorists coming across the border so I guess Rep. Paul's contribution to strategy is to plug his ears and sing "LaLaLaLa."

"LaLaLa". Reminds me of Bush's border policy at home. Dr. No wants us out and in defensive mode which we can't do as long as future terrorists are streaming across USA borders.
 
8052016wx.png
 
Speaking of Air Force Infantry (why do I shudder at the concept?) I saw an article on Military.Com that talked about this novel concept (from StrategyPage).

Why the U.S. Navy is Creating a New Marine Corps
by James Dunnigan
August 2, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

The U.S. Navy feels it is in need of more “soldiers of the sea.” But since the U.S. Navy has lost control of the U.S. Marine Corps, the navy is assembling a new force of sailors serving as naval infantry. This is not really new. For example, the toughest troops in the Navy Department are not the marines, but the sailors who belong to the SEALs, an organization formed in the 1960s. But the process of regenerating the American naval infantry is accelerating. There was a time, not too long ago, when the marines where what marines had always been, soldiers who belonged to the navy and served on ships. But since World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps have developed into a truly separate force, no longer available to the navy.

While marines like to think that the Marine Corps has, since 1798, been a separate service, this did not actually happen until quite recently. Until World War II, the Marine Corps was so small, and dependent on the navy (for amphibious ships and, well, work to do), that in practice, marines tended to do whatever the navy asked them to do. But after World War II, the much larger marine force became, gradually, a truly independent service. The marines were still intertwined with the navy, but increasingly, able to defy the admirals. Thus we have the navy forming the SEAL commandos, in the early 1960s, using sailors, rather than marines. Over the next few decades, the navy slowly stopped using marines for their traditional job of providing onboard ship security. By the end of the century, the navy was content to let the marines be whatever they could get away with, and the navy would basically do without them.

After September 11, 2001, when the navy sought to increase its security force for ships in port, it did not turn to the marines (who long had taken care of that sort of thing), but greatly expanded the number of “Masters at Arms” (previously a job category, not a force). Now comes the ECG (expeditionary combat battalion) of high quality sailors who could fight on water or land in coastal operations. The ECG would obtain its manpower from those who apply to join the SEALs, but don’t make it. The SEALs are a very selective organization, accepting less than one in ten of those who apply. Now the navy wants to do something with those high quality rejects. The recent navy announcement that it is putting together a “brown water (coastal and rivers)” force mentioned an infantry component, and that these troops would be sailors, not troops from the Marine Corps. This new force also makes it clear how much the navy and marines have grown apart.

But the ECG is expected to be higher quality than the marines, something close to U.S. Army Special Forces. The ECG would be trained in foreign languages and cultures, and be part of the force that provided training to foreign navies. But the ECG would also take over some SEAL functions, like providing boarding parties for dangerous interdiction missions. Most of these boarding operations are not dangerous, and are handled by specially trained sailors and Masters at Arms. These folks are also doing a job that has traditionally belonged to “marines.” But since the U.S. Navy no longer has control of the U.S. Marine Corps, and needs marines, it has to rebuild the force under a new name. Or, rather, several new names.

The new marine force will be only a few thousand strong, which is more in line with the proportion of marines in other navies. The U.S. Navy lost its original marine force because the U.S. Marine Corps got so large during World War II that it was no longer a part of the navy, but a truly separate entity. This new force of naval infantry also revives another old navy tradition; infantry training for sailors. Until about a century ago, infantry training for sailors, and even infantry exercises on land, were a regular feature of navy life. All this had faded away by the 1930s. The navy stopped issuing field manuals for naval infantry in the 1960s. But the war on terror, and increased emphasis on brown water operations, has returned many sailors to the old ways. The new naval infantry will perform many of the traditional marine functions, without being called marines.


All I can say is, "Welcome back to the party, sons of the Sand Pebbles." :D
 
Until World War II, the Marine Corps was so small, and dependent on the navy (for amphibious ships and, well, work to do), that in practice, marines tended to do whatever the navy asked them to do.

I have this image of explaining this to certain people in a bar :D

"You there, Marine! I'm with the Navy. You must do as I ask!"
 
ooh-rah

Yea the Marines got tired of asking the Navy for help and supplys to do thier job and getting turned down. But when ever there was a battle to fight the navy was right there to give them a ride to it. Seems they formed there own Airwing too. :)

The US Marines fought in Mexico before, No reason why they can't protect Our "US" border now. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, etc..."
 
Bush is a lame duck now, so going into Syria or Iran can't hurt him - maybe the party, but not him. I believe that they have been waiting for an opportunity to go into Iran or Syria, and that it was on the drawing board before the first US troop set foot in Iraq. If things settle out in Iraq soon and a democratic stable government takes hold (I am still doubtful), I fully expect them to go into Syria in force and try to topple Iran from within if possible. Every bit of progress we make in Iraq possibly encourages fed up folks in those countries to make internal changes. It would be a whole lot easier however if the ones pushing the changes were Islamic and not Americans, who for the most part are not. I don't think Syria will be as tough a nut to crack as Iraq was, which wasn't very.

How long have we been in Korea? How long were we in Japan? Germany? I don't think people get it. We are in the Middle East to STAY, unless a change of US government dictates otherwise.

I also think that what another poster said is true, if Israel thinks any unfriendly nearby nation is about to complete construction of a facility that makes nuclear bomb material, they will hammer them. They don’t really have choice when up against the kind of fanatical knuckleheads they are facing.

TEX
 
You guys crack me up sometimes ...
Yea the Marines got tired of asking the Navy for help and supplys to do thier job and getting turned down. But when ever there was a battle to fight the navy was right there to give them a ride to it. Seems they formed there own Airwing too.
I beg to differ. I've worked with SEALs, and they aren't really all that great.
My money's on a two-way tie between Special Forces and Force Recon.
And a thread on expansion of the war in the Middle East degenerates into interservice jealousy and "my guys are better than your guys." Ah well; in the immortal words of the great philosopher, Dalton: "Opinions vary."
as a group, SEALs read their own press clippings too much.
No doubt you personally know, and have talked with, a lot of SEALs to have formed this opinion.
 
And a thread on expansion of the war in the Middle East degenerates into interservice jealousy and "my guys are better than your guys."
I just get tired of hearing about how great SEALs are, and knowing better. There are some truly hard-core operators out there, but they tend to be a little more humble. All the SEAls really have is great equipment and a great PR machine.
 
I'd give them much more credit than that Doc. But yes Old Dog, I've worked with them. The dozen or so I've professionally met are great in the water and ok in the woods but they with don't match up in overall skill set to the Force operators I know.

They tend to share a lack of the "quiet competence" attitude you'll find in the Beret's, CC's, PJ's and Force (don't know any Delta guys but I understand they don't pull macho BS all the time either). They get the latest toys (which, yes, made me jealous) but also are too quick to tout just how Jedi Knight they are and depend too much on the gear. Except when they don't bring it cause they "don't need it".

I've seen them, while training in unfamiliar dangerous environments, believe that their overall fitness and toughness can take the place of knowledge, gear selection and wise decision making. That can and has gung-ho'd them into trouble.

As far as interservice rivalry goes. It's almost wholly in fun.

The Air Force can do what they want, nothing would be better than for that service to get away from the "we're a big business" model they went too in the recent past. If they want to go to a real infantry component rather than throwing a little more school at their cops and thinking it adequate infantry training, more power to them. All their guys need to get time on the rifle and a true sense of being warriors.

The Navy has had a similar problem. I know for a fact their are some hard guys out there who couldn't make it through BUD's but that would be taking names given the skill set, and those are guys who in many cases signed up to actually just work on ships. My primary personal Navy experience is with Special Boat guys and Corpsmen who volunteer to serve in Recon units so I know the men are there, just underutilized right now. Sailors have a long history of being the point men for our country and stealing that warrior role from them with the "all is nuclear, all is aircraft" BS was a crime.
 
I agree with Byron and denfoote. Nuke 'em 'til they glow, shoot 'em in the dark, get our guys the hell out of there--repeat as necessary.
 
The dozen or so I've professionally met are great in the water and ok in the woods but they with don't match up in overall skill set to the Force operators I know.

They tend to share a lack of the "quiet competence" attitude you'll find in the Beret's, CC's, PJ's and Force (don't know any Delta guys but I understand they don't pull macho BS all the time either). They get the latest toys (which, yes, made me jealous) but also are too quick to tout just how Jedi Knight they are and depend too much on the gear. Except when they don't bring it cause they "don't need it".

I've seen them, while training in unfamiliar dangerous environments, believe that their overall fitness and toughness can take the place of knowledge, gear selection and wise decision making. That can and has gung-ho'd them into trouble.
That, if I'd written more, would have been pretty much exactly what I would have written. I chose the short way out.
 
longhorngunman said:
Let's see, Syria- a thorn in our side and openly allowing or even ordering terrorists into Iraq to kill our troops and spread havoc( also would be nice to see if ole Assad has Saddam's WMD, he DID have them and did something with them), hard to let Iraq stabilize until Syria is dealt with. Iran- Do we do the inevitable and destroy the mullahs now or wait to deal with them after they have the Nuclear bomb? There's no stick your head in the sand on this one, there is no chance for America or our allies to ever have a feeling of peace again and actual progress in the ME until Iran is delt with. BTW I believe the Bush administration was hoping that Syria and Iran would fall from within if enough pressure was applied. That still may happen in Syria( most accounts have Assad as not having overwhelming control), contrary to most Americans belief a sizable majority of Iranians would like to have the mullahs out themselves. The "elections" in Iran are a joke and it isn't like the US where rebellion towards the 'rulers' a la Cindy Sheehan is accepted. If Cindy had done in Iran what she tried here she would have long ago taken a dirt nap;) . Alas I don't see the young Iranians wielding the power or arms to overthrow the mullahs, so I say the bombing begins in 8 months.


Yea, umm, quick thought, could you be so brave later on too, and take the hit when some f'ed up terrorist who's family your airstrike killed walks into a downtown restaurant with a bomb-belt?

No, you can't can you. You wouldn't if you could. You're all talk, bomb them, bomb this, bomb that.

Well there are repercussions. And besides poking the biggest religious martry-nests with a stick, you want to pretend its the moral thing to do, as well. You want airstrikes on civilian facilities, and you know that retaliation will be against American civilians. You don't even know if the rest of the world will be content to wag their fingers, or if they will impose sanctions, or intervene with troops of their own!

And you are so brave to declare we are at 'war' right now, war this war that, but we refuse to declare war on ANYONE. And we refuse to acknowledge that the enemies are prisoners of WAR. You are as two-faced as Kerry!

And your ultimate crowning achievment, you just tow the party line no matter what. No Matter What. Must be nice to not have to think. Why do you feel SYRIA is the enemy, when SAUDI ARABIA KNOCKED DOWN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

"You gotta attack those enemies, ya know, because Ann Coulter said so, ya know, and she's a woman who looks like a man, ya know, so it must be right." BS. SAUDI ARABIA attacked us. You ignore it. You attack Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, no-one gives a crap.

You don't even have your propaganda straight, for Pete's sake. The gov't here already issued the new truth in doubleplusgood speak, and they said they were wrong about Saddam having WMDs. Jeeze, keep up with your propaganda if you want to play this game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top