RGard

November 15th, 2019 at 2:18 PM ^

He's right at the maximum height for being a Marine Corps pilot.  In the Army Field Artillery Officer Basic course back in 1983 we had Marines taking the same course with us.  One of them was a Marine 1st Lieutenant, was 6'4" or 6'5"who had been to Marine flight school and made it as far as the dunking machine.  He was just too big to wriggle his way out of the seat/frame so they sent him to Field Artillery school.

Joined: 10/20/2014

MGoPoints: 57372

CallsignHobo

November 15th, 2019 at 1:06 PM ^

Oh great...my squadron’s biggest intramural sports rival is MATSG, and I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before Noah checks in and starts dominating us out there

Joined: 10/26/2017

MGoPoints: 37

Perkis-Size Me

November 15th, 2019 at 1:40 PM ^

Thank you, Noah. Thank you for offering to put your life on the line so schmucks like us can hang around this board every day and talk about our favorite SPARTY NO memes. 

Joined: 11/30/2011

MGoPoints: 106041

BIGWEENIE

November 15th, 2019 at 1:55 PM ^

Congrats. Learned a lot in the Marines even when people didn't want us around. Worked hard had some fun and found out shit about myself I would have never known. I would rather take a bullet for a fellow Marine than speak German, remember that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joined: 11/29/2010

MGoPoints: 942

Building_7_Free_Fall

November 15th, 2019 at 4:58 PM ^

Semper Fi Devil Dog!

Kick ass, learn the ways of the world, and travel the path of Tulsi, not McCain.

USMC Reserve 77-83

Joined: 05/01/2018

MGoPoints: 41

RAH

November 15th, 2019 at 7:16 PM ^

Based on his experiences in the late 1800s and early 20th century Butler's opinions were defensible when he published them in the mid-1930s. That was the way the world had always worked. But since his death the situation has changed.

Joined: 02/23/2018

MGoPoints: 7637

Building_7_Free_Fall

November 15th, 2019 at 9:19 PM ^

I agree with you that nuclear weapons are a game changer.  Butler could not foresee the need to be able to project force across an ocean in order to deter aggression/blackmail.

Otherwise, I disagree that much has changed at all.

For example, what is the evidence and logical argument that justifies, in the name of national DEFENSE, the aggression we've unleashed on Iraq/Libya/Syria? (Leaving Afghanistan/Pakistan out to avoid complicating things here.)

Backing up a step, is there even a LEGAL basis for attacking and occupying Syria, for example, let alone distributing their oil to our anti-Assad friends?  The War Powers Act?  The post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force?  Good luck finding anything in either.  Then there is the matter of international law, which the U.S. government is legally bound by.  Is it supposed to make us feel proud to be the playground bully, taking lunch money from our classmates?

Is the real reason for our involvement related to a gas pipeline (to compete with Russia's gas) that Assad reportedly rejected?  Do we have any prior examples of similar behavior possibilities (with an oil pipeline) in the 1950s?  How plausible are these reasons compared to the claim that impoverishing the Syrian people makes us somehow safer? How does it make us safer to take down a Syrian government fighting for its survival against Al Queda in Syria and ISIS, nowhere to be found over there until we showed up?

If we are serious about our national defense, then maybe we can follow the example from a quote sometimes attributed to Admiral Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy before WWII: 

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.  There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." 

Yes, keep our nukes.  But, yes, also keep our guns.  When 5G is fully rolled out, the U.S. government surveillance network will be running on all cylinders.  All that would be left for their total control is the disarming of the population. 

If one can admit the possibility that these wars are being fought for the benefit of certain corporations and connected individuals (and not for everyday American citizens), then one must also admit the possibility that these forces can be used (or have already been used) against us everyday American citizens.

IMO, this is one area where the fight for liberty and "the American way" should be fought.

What would Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers be doing if they were alive today?

Joined: 05/01/2018

MGoPoints: 41