This is cool

[Shadow]

Actually Peace, that signature holds a ton of meaning. Guns are not evil. People can use them for evil things, but the gun itself is not evil. Also most people that own guns (at least in the US) don't own them for killing people, but for sporting, such as hunting and just shooting targets.

While it's true that the gun is only as problematic at the hand holding it, the comparison to pencils is not a reasonable one, for the simple reason that a gun is made as a weapon, for the purpose of destruction. The fact that other objects can cause problems when not used as intended is irrelevant, since we are concerned with the primary function here. This is what Peace was trying to say.

Nothing about politics, please. Regardless of what the justification is for the war, Marines only kill when given a lawful order to do so, and only according to the specified rules of engagement. I fully recognize the fact that Marines have to kill people in order to carry out their duty and orders, but they do so as disciplined soldiers, not as wild killing machines. A soldier or Marine who kills someone in the line of duty is no different from a police officer who has to kill in the line of their duty.

I would argue that the difference is that a police officer kills in defense, whereas a marine is often than the aggressor.

You guys are bad at comparisons.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Then why do they sell live ammo for handguns, or machine guns?

People hunt/shoot targets with those as well. There's entire competitions and courses based around handguns. The same is true for "machine guns" which by that I assume you mean a firearm that shoots fully automatic.

[Shores of Tripoli]

 Yes, I frequently participate in local rifle and pistol competitions. It's little league and I'm not really that great.

[Gen. Volkov]

I would argue that the difference is that a police officer kills in defense, whereas a marine is often than the aggressor.

I would argue that is horse[poop]. The guy a Marine kills is trying just as hard to kill him, and he is killing the other guy as much for self defense as any other reason. Further reason why that is horse[poop]: SWAT teams.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Wow. I agree with Volkov. Well done.

[Shores of Tripoli]

 The military is simply self defense on a large scale. The national scale.

[Genevieve]

Self defence like when you break into someone else's house and try to fix their problems.

[Shadow]

I would argue that the difference is that a police officer kills in defense, whereas a marine is often than the aggressor.

I would argue that is horse[poop]. The guy a Marine kills is trying just as hard to kill him, and he is killing the other guy as much for self defense as any other reason. Further reason why that is horse[poop]: SWAT teams.

I didn't say self defense, I said defense (of country/civilians/others from an unprovoked aggressor). A SWAT team sent in on a police action is still in civilian defense, at least within the US, and police officers aren't used directly in military actions in other countries except in token roles within the military structure. For eg, anywhere in the middle east right now, the US is the aggressor at this point. Whether or not the soldier is fighting to defend himself at the time doesn't change this.

If I attack someone and he defends himself, I can't kill him and claim I did it in self-defense.

The military is simply self defense on a large scale. The national scale.

Ideally this would be true, but in the case of the US, it simply isn't.

[Shores of Tripoli]

Self defence like when you break into someone else's house and try to fix their problems.

How about when somebody crashes a plane into your house and kills your family, then you go kick there butt so they can't do it to your neighbors.

[Sharptooh]

Self defence like when you break into someone else's house and try to fix their problems.

How about when somebody crashes a plane into your house and kills your family, then you go kick there [Behind] so they can't do it to your neighbors.

No I think:

How about we go and kill them (and aggravate their neighbors) to try and stop them, but only succeed in angering them further and allowing lots of people to die needlessly?

This is even assuming Gen was talking about that, you realise how many US troops are stationed in other countries? What business does the US have intervening in their affairs?

[Rakefur]

International security. We're only stationed in rogue nations or countries with large amounts of terrorists.

[Shadow]

...That's pretty far from the truth. Japan, for instance.

[Sharptooh]

International security. We're only stationed in rogue nations or countries with large amounts of terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world

[Rakefur]

I stand corrected. But as you can see, the counties with the most troops are either allies, trade partners, or (rogue nations or countries with large amounts of terrorists)

[Shores of Tripoli]

 German for example has a world class artillery training facility. Almost every country in the world trains their artillery there. Its mostly Marines stationed in Japan (Okinawa), they are there as a rapid response force in the pacific. I believe it the 12th MEU (not for sure) that can deploy to anywhere in the pacific world from Okinawa. When Japan attacked us in WW2 it took us 6 months before we could strike back at Guadalcanal, now with rapid communications and forward deployed units those days are over. We came very close to losing everything in WW2, and most people feared just that in those early days of the Pacific campaign. All those troops are is a wide spread defensive net, the wider the net, the safer we are sitting on our computers at home.