GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

A Hootch Worthy Of The Marine Corps

November 19, 2007 by Average Gay Joe

Yesterday the Young Marine in the family ‘dragged’ all of us off to see the new National Museum of the Marine Corps. Actually, he didn’t have to convince me much to go there as I’ve seen the ‘spire’ of this structure for some time now from the highway as I drive to and from work. Just the uniqueness of the design itself, inspired by a famous photograph, was enough to pique my interest even without what and whom the museum pays tribute to. So without the trees lining the highway to obscure the view, we pulled up and were greeted with this sight:



Even before walking in the door of this place my mind went into spasms of “oooooh! aaaaaah!” as it drew upon my own experiences in imagining everything that went into constructing such a unique building. When we stepped inside I of course just had to do what comes natural when faced with such a visual oddity: I looked up with childlike wonder to see if I could somehow divine the secrets of how it was constructed.

No such luck unfortunately, but in the awe-inspiring “Leatherneck Gallery” I was treated to grand sights of Marine history coming at me from both the air and ground such as these:

Indeed, I quickly learned that throughout the museum there are things to see from all sides up, down, left, right, you name it and undoubtedly I missed some in trying to take it all in. I was amazed at the fine job that was done here, a worthy tribute to a noble organization. The attention to detail was remarkable in the displays, including the small things that most people wouldn’t notice. For example, the mess of ‘bootprints’ on the ground in one Vietnam display. I wish I had taken a photo of it, for it was pretty clever in that they made it as if several pairs of boots trampled over the same spot running in different directions just like one would find in real dirt. There was so much detail in fact that one gentleman, not part of our family group and who appeared to be old enough to have served in Vietnam himself, looked over at me, smiled weakly, and said, “This is too realistic”, before leaving for another part of the museum. From exhibits showing Marines in the heat of battle…

…to the caring of one’s buddies during the fight…

…to finally the human cost of war in making the ultimate sacrifice.

Yet for all the fine work that went into making these displays, perhaps the most moving item for me was this everday object:

The simplicity of this is striking in what it represents: the death of thousands when our vigilance is relaxed and what such men and women as the Marines fight against everyday. The history lessons and tribute at the museum were nice and worht the visit, but in this small computer mouse I left with an immense feeling of gratitude for the Marines and all of those in uniform who defend our freedoms and keep us safe. Semper Fi, Leathernecks!

Filed Under: American History, Freedom, Great Americans, Great Men, Military, Patriotism, Photoblogging, Travel, War On Terror

Comments

  1. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 19, 2007 at 2:08 pm - November 19, 2007

    It was my pleasure to meet Joe Rosenthal (the photographer who snapped the famous Iwo Jima flag-raising) before his death. He was always amazed at how iconic his piece of work had become…..and the first to tell you that it wasn’t him, but the guys who were raising that flag, who were fighting their way up the beachhead, and who were dying by the thousands to take a tiny island whose greatest value was as an emergency landing field for their comrades flying B-29s in bombing runs to and from Japan.

    Iwo shows you how the perspective of war has changed. Nearly 28,000 men became casualties, with 6,825 dying, just so 2,251 B-29s could make emergency landings, some for things as trivial as minor technical glitches.

    Yet putting an end to the death by starvation of over 500,000 children, the genocide of entire religious and ethnic groups, and a brutal totalitarian regime that openly bribed and corrupted world leaders, threatened its neighbors, and supported terrorism is “not worth the cost”.

  2. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm - November 19, 2007

    A friend’s brothers are in both the Marines and the Coast Guard. (I.e., one each) I learned a little about their inter-service rivalry. Did you know “MARINE” is an acronym? Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Expected.

    Seriously – What is the angled spire meant to represent? It’s the first time I’ve seen it and it looks like a sundial to me. But I’ll be happy to let someone supply me a better interpretation.

  3. John says

    November 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm - November 19, 2007

    It was my pleasure to meet Joe Rosenthal (the photographer who snapped the famous Iwo Jima flag-raising) before his death.

    You were quite fortunate. I didn’t get the opportunity to meet Rosenthal, but did have the chance to meet some of the guys who made it to the top of Mt. Suribachi at the veterans event about a week ago. Cool men.

  4. John says

    November 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm - November 19, 2007

    A friend’s brothers are in both the Marines and the Coast Guard. (I.e., one each) I learned a little about their inter-service rivalry. Did you know “MARINE” is an acronym? Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Expected.

    The Coast Guard? You mean the Navy wannabees? Well being former Navy I know a few choice meanings for Marine acronyms, but alas the cleanest I can recall is USMC stands for “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children”. Oddly enough, most Marines I knew wore that as a perverse badge of honor. 😉

    Seriously – What is the angled spire meant to represent? It’s the first time I’ve seen it and it looks like a sundial to me. But I’ll be happy to let someone supply me a better interpretation.

    Click the link in the post. It’s representative of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.

  5. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 19, 2007 at 2:28 pm - November 19, 2007

    My favorite pro-Marine slogan is a bumper sticker I recently saw: “The Marines… When it Absolutely, Positively has to be Destroyed Overnight.”

  6. Julie the Jarhead says

    November 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm - November 19, 2007

    Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Expected.

    Too funny. I tell people they threw me out of the Marines when they found out that my IQ was higher than my shoe size. 😮

  7. Houndentenor says

    November 19, 2007 at 3:51 pm - November 19, 2007

    It does look like a sundial. Perhaps it’s a multi-purpose building?

  8. jgwilk says

    November 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm - November 19, 2007

    “Yet putting an end to the death by starvation of over 500,000 children, the genocide of entire religious and ethnic groups, and a brutal totalitarian regime that openly bribed and corrupted world leaders, threatened its neighbors, and supported terrorism is “not worth the cost”.

    Now was this before or AFTER ronnie raygun and the elder bush were feeding saddam hussein weapons when he was at war with iran?

  9. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm - November 19, 2007

    Wow, jg… what an original and thoughfull response! You must be college educated.

  10. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 19, 2007 at 5:07 pm - November 19, 2007

    And actually, it was Jimmuh Carter who assisted Saddam’s rise to power and war with Iran.

    (1980, jg. Reagan wasn’t President yet. You know, kind of like when John Kerry lied about President Nixon lying to him around Christmas 1968, when Nixon wasn’t President yet in 1968? LOL – Lefties and dates.)

  11. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 19, 2007 at 5:10 pm - November 19, 2007

    Now was this before or AFTER ronnie raygun and the elder bush were feeding saddam hussein weapons when he was at war with iran?

    After, my friend, well after.

    Which makes your statements even more hilarious; you are criticizing the very people and party who ATTACKED and wanted Saddam Hussein removed, versus your party, who preferred him perpetuated in power.

  12. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 5:22 pm - November 19, 2007

    The US supplied Iraq with less than 1% of its military arms. The majority came from Russia, France and China.

    I dont have the link and don’t care to spend time looking for it.

  13. jgwilk says

    November 19, 2007 at 6:03 pm - November 19, 2007

    “I dont have the link and don’t care to spend time looking for it.”
    because it doesn’t exist perhaps?

  14. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm - November 19, 2007

    “I dont have the link and don’t care to spend time looking for it.”
    because it doesn’t exist perhaps?

    Comment by jgwilk — November 19, 2007 @ 6:03 pm – November 19, 2007

    Are you calling me a liar?

  15. John says

    November 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm - November 19, 2007

    because it doesn’t exist perhaps?

    And yet it does, which a very quick Google search shows. According to this from the Heritage Foundation, the USA didn’t make the Top Ten of arms suppliers for Iraq from 1981-2001. China, Russia and France rounded out the Top Three. It cites an article from SIPRI, hardly a right-wing group, that unfortunately doesn’t appear to be found online anymore. However, at the SIPRI website you can generate a sheet here to find out what weapons systems were sent to Iraq in what years. Our meager support ended in 1986. To use the database at SIPRI, go to “Generate tailored Trade Registers”; enter in USA, USSR, China, France & Germany as suppliers; enter Iraq as recipient; enter the years 1981 – 2001. The results are very interesting to say the least.

  16. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 6:45 pm - November 19, 2007

    John, thanks!

    SIPRI is exactly where I saw the information I stated.

  17. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm - November 19, 2007

    John, wow! Thanks for that. Never seen that organization or database before.

    And, the claims of another lefty jokester flushed down the toilet…

  18. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm - November 19, 2007

    Q: And what four countries were most and utterly against enforcing sanctions against Saddam, or actually requiring Saddam to comply?

    A: China, Russia, France, and Germany.

    That is what is known as “protecting your investments”.

  19. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 7:26 pm - November 19, 2007

    Oh NDT.. Geopolitics is so boring when instead you can come up with names like “Raygun”…. Name calling is so much more nuanced and sophisticated… which is why so many of those educated in college come up with such creative mangling of people’s names.

    After all, who can refute the genius of homophonic “raygun”? Your charts, facts, and data don’t provide such an emotional high.

  20. Robert says

    November 19, 2007 at 8:02 pm - November 19, 2007

    Yes, yes. Blah, blah, blah. Don’t give me all these numbers and citations. I really don’t care. My mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with the facts. -jgwilk

    Do I have that about right, jg?

    And a question: let’s pretend for a minute that “raygun” and Bush did supply Saddam with most of his weapons – are you saying that we should have left him in power (with these weapons and with UN sanctions in place)?

  21. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm - November 19, 2007

    Great point, Robert; the Democrats who scream about us selling Saddam weapons of mass destruction are the same ones who insist he didn’t have any.

  22. John says

    November 19, 2007 at 9:38 pm - November 19, 2007

    VinceP & ILC: Welcome. I remembered the name of that group from the last time some leftie tried that claim.

    One thing I’m having trouble understanding here. I thought that the United Nations was the paragon of virtue and legitimacy to the Left. How many resolutions was Saddam in violation of? I’ve lost count.

  23. Vince P says

    November 19, 2007 at 9:56 pm - November 19, 2007

    John, i agree with you:
    the Left views the UN the same way the Islamic and other countries do.. as a way to constrain the US and Israel.. not to serve as a forum for collective security.

  24. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 26, 2007 at 11:58 am - November 26, 2007

    Click the link in the post. [The spire is] representative of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.

    Meant to be, I’m sure. But in my view, it doesn’t quite work.

    What we might call ‘novelty architecture’ is always risky. It reminds me of this church in SF. No one can remember what its novelty was supposed to represent anymore; they just call it “St Mary Maytag”, “Sister Mary Agitator” and the like.

  25. ColonialMarine0431 says

    November 26, 2007 at 6:28 pm - November 26, 2007

    Why has this thread deginerated into a debate on who built up Saddam and an architectural critique?

  26. Vince P says

    November 26, 2007 at 9:03 pm - November 26, 2007

    25: Because a Leftard decided to enlighten us with his wisdom

  27. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 26, 2007 at 9:28 pm - November 26, 2007

    And, separately, because the architecture is a prominent part of the original post.

  28. Prepare for Boot Camp says

    May 23, 2009 at 4:27 am - May 23, 2009

    Thanks for reminding me not to take my freedoms for granted. Very nice pictures, makes you think what it must have been like in real combat, hell!

Categories

Archives