I’m kind of of the unpopular opinion in the opposite direction–militia compounds in the US should be treated the same way as those in the Middle East–with Predator drones and Hellfire missiles.
I wish McVeign, who was executed on June 11, 2001, went to his grave thinking he was some hot shot terrorist who would always be remember. I wish his execution had been delayed four months and taken place on October 11, 2001, so he would know that in the world of remembered terrorism, he was chickenshit.
Wouldn’t that be the opposite of a peasant? A peasant isn’t afraid of getting his hands dirty, what you’re describing is someone who is “afraid his rings will fall off” as we say in Spanish.
That tends to lead to “what? Why not?” and this would actually be the polite version. I’ve even had to leave a company party because a coworker who happened to be untouchable was colluding with two other brains to force a bottle of JD down my gullet.
The United States Marine Corps is an anachronism whose actual missions are redundant with those of the Army, and should be retired as an organization.
Interesting. Can you expand?
Criminals kill 50 times as many African Americans as cops kill. If Black Lives Matter activists are not careful, criminals will run rampant, and the increase in crime-related deaths will vastly outnumber any decrease in cop-related deaths than might have been achieved.
Conventional wisdom holds that poverty causes crime. I think that it is more often the reverse. If you have to devote resources to protect yourself from crime, those resources are not available for your retirement fund, or your children’s college fund. A small number of gangsters can blight a large neighborhood, for generations.
Revolutions do not happen because the poor are oppressed.
Revolutions do not happen because the middle class are oppressed.
Revolutions happen because the lower-ranking aristocrats see the top jobs just slightly out of reach.
What do you mean by “careful?” Why would criminals “run rampant” if cops had less unjustified shootings?
Hogwash, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) got exactly what they wanted. We are terrorized. Everything we have done as a result is clear evidence of this. They took a proud free society that was, in someways, a beacon to the world and turned it into a nation of mice who are afraid of their own shadows.
Our response to terrorists should have been that of the British during the blitz. Nothing that has happened in the US caused even 1/100th the terror rained on Briton by Hitler, and yet the British public were never cowed. The war leadership in Briton had lots of negative qualities but they knew how to inspire. The only thing US leadership has inspired is more fear.
If you talked to anyone in the 1980s and told them that America would ever have a federal agency of “Homeland Security” they would think you were nuts. That name is something straight out of Soviet Block authoritarian regimes. Between them and the TSA and the NSA Americans have never been less free of intrusion from security services into their personal affairs. Cite with plenty more to offer if you would like.
We have sold our freedoms in the name of illusory “security.” Because in response to a few acts of terrorism our leaders and our press have said, not “Live your lives as if the terrorist don’t exist, show them we won’t be cowed,” but “You’re not afraid enough! Be more afraid!”
Our leaders and our press have failed this country by trying to be “tough on terror” and by publishing hysterical clickbait headlines, respectively. They managed to work the populace into a state where a majority are willing to say, “To heck with our freedoms, just keep us safe.”
Wouldn’t, to heck with our safety, keep us free, have been a better message? Especially because the actual threat from terrorism is, in fact minuscule.
Sure! This article makes some good points.
The Marine Corps was founded as a naval infantry force. Well things change, and of course we no longer need boarding parties (or when we do, Navy and Coast Guard are perfectly capable) and snipers up the masts of the ship.
The other two hallmarks of the Marine Corps have been opposed amphibious landings, and expeditionary capability.
The last real amphibious landing was Korea (Marines inserted amphibiously into Vietnam as well, but it was a boat ride to the beach rather than an assault) and weapons and capabilities being what they are, there will never be another amphibious assault of the type that that is the Marine Corps’ raison d’etre.
As far as expeditionary capability and being the ‘tip of the spear,’ there’s no reason that, say, an Army unit couldn’t accomplish the same thing. “But the built-in logistical capabilities of the MC!” you might say. Well…transfer them to the Army.
What has the MC been doing, mission-wise, lately? Yes, the Marine Corps has specialized capabilities and doctrine, but it’s not being used. It’s fighting (or fought) from firebases bases in Afghanistan and previously Iraq in the exact same manner Army units are.
Typing this while I do other things so apologies if it’s scatterbrained.
I read something recently where the MC was going to try to develop/improve it’s cyber warfare capabilities. Why?!? How redundant (and inferior) is that compared to the cyber capabilities already in place in other branches?
I think every ground capability of the MC should be folded into the Army, and every air capability folded in to the Navy. Anymore, there’s simply no reason for the MC to have redundant missions with the waste of resources and money that entails. The only real argument for keeping the MC around any more is sentimental.
Ah, but everybody knows Patrick Henry was a traitor.
I’ve been told the reason why the Marine Corps is still around is because the people want a Marine Corps.
I wouldn’t want to be a part of the Army. I joined the Marines for a reason.
Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk
Of course, you’re exactly right.
I’m curious about this one. How does this make you a (presumably metaphorical) peasant? Aren’t peasants the people that do all the labor? If you have money and have other people do work for you, aren’t you the metaphorical noble?
I’ve always thought revolutions happen when the regime loses the loyalty of its enforcers. Once the regime can no longer count on its police and soldiers to shoot the rebels, the regime’s days are numbered.
All I know is I tried to stain my own deck and it cost more money when I finally hired the pros to do it, because of my failed attempt. The moral of the story is don’t try. Delegate. As far as I’m concerned one of the few appealing aspects of wealth is paying other people to do work so you don’t have to.
I think that [del]Texas[/del] Ohio should secede, and be allowed to secede - to be rid of it and its effects on elections and rational education.
My second contribution:
“X is the new Y” is idiotic and should be dismissed. Just like starting sentences with “So” (“Blue is the new 50”, or “So Carnac the Magnificent just showed up on my doorstep.”)
So, it’s my opinion that the “Unpopular opinion” thread is the new “Minirant” thread.
This is exactly what I was going to post. Taking them for what they are rather than what I wished they be, I’ve grown to enjoy them more and more over the years.
Because this isn’t “argue about your opinions”, I’ll try to keep this short. The Terrorists don’t care about our freedoms, America is a sideshow to them, the only reason they care about America is because of our support for our client states in the Middle East, or our hostility to other disfavored states in the Middle East. There are hundreds of bombings and terrorist attacks in the Middle East and South Asia for every one in America or Europe.
To take Iraq for example, we spent a decade there, spent untold Billions of dollars, and walked away worse off than ever. Was this a win for Al Qaida? No, no more than it was a win for Saddam. Saddam didn’t want to force America to spend hundreds of billions and cripple itself for nothing. He wanted to continue to rule Iraq as dictator. Well, he can’t do that because he’s dead. He lost. That doesn’t mean we won, because we lost too. The real winners of course were the Iranians, who watched us topple their hated rival and watched us botch the job of setting up an Iraqi client state, and now Iraq is an Iranian client state instead of a deadly enemy. So sad for Al Qaida, so sad for Saddam, so sad for the United States, so sad for liberal democracy in the Middle East, all losers in this war. Multiple sides can lose, it’s a non-zero sum game.