I have a trivia question and a video

[texan]

From the Halls of Montezuma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chapultepec)To the shores of Tripoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derne);We fight our country's battlesIn the air, on land, and sea;First to fight for right and freedomAnd to keep our honor clean;We are proud to claim the titleOf United States Marine.
Do you know without rushing to google how Tripoli got into the Marine Hymm and why? I didn't realize it until recently when events lead me to find out. It is pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vApBZlaePec

There is a hint in this video.

[silvereyes]

I give up...why?

[Chris]

Didn't Jefferson send marines there? Tripoli was holding sailors ransom, right, and he refused to pay, and sent in the marines.

[southwest88]

The war against the Barbary Pirates - they were capturing our crews, cargo, holding them for ransom (if the family could cough up the money), otherwise sold into slavery. This was along the western side of the north African coast, as I recall - the western Mediterranean. (Tripoli's in modern Libya?) Some of our earliest Navy & Marine actions, too. The Navy officer (?) in charge distinguished himself, I think. The Marines did well too - with a small force of regulars & picked up some Navy & volunteers along the way - & liberated some crew who joined up as well.

Our first official razzia against Islamic freebooters, although the religious angle was a distant priority for our troops. The initial choice was whether to pay tribute or not - we - the US gov. - decided not to pay any more (besides, it kept going up).

[southwest88]

Didn't Jefferson send marines there? Tripoli was holding sailors ransom, right, and he refused to pay, and sent in the marines.

Common sailor's family didn't usually have the resources to pay - I think it was more the well-connected passengers who were being held for ransom. Sometimes comfortably, sometimes not. It all seemed to depend on whether the pasha (?) was taken with the prisoner or not.

It might have been Pres. Jefferson - I'd have to look. This was all a long time ago, both the historical action & the last time I studied this stuff in civics - 5th grade or so? It seems like ages ago ...

[Private Pickle]

Jarhead stuff...

[Peter1469]

It was a very small number of Marines. They hired mercenaries from local tribes that didn't like the people that they were attacking.

[silvereyes]

Cool info!!!

[Chris]

Common sailor's family didn't usually have the resources to pay - I think it was more the well-connected passengers who were being held for ransom. Sometimes comfortably, sometimes not. It all seemed to depend on whether the pasha (?) was taken with the prisoner or not.

It might have been Pres. Jefferson - I'd have to look. This was all a long time ago, both the historical action & the last time I studied this stuff in civics - 5th grade or so? It seems like ages ago ...


Likely it was the rich who stirred the government's action.

Pretty sure it was Jefferson. The hostage taking began before he was in office. But believe he's the one took action.

[Peter1469]

The US was paying tribute to the pirates for years....

[texan]

There are some good correct answers, but there is more. Chris hit something I found very interesting. When we hear or sing the song and say "Tripoli" I never really thought much about it, I almost thought it was random lyrics (or Tripoli was something else). But it is indeed Tripoli Libya and at that time it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

They seized our ships, took our goods and either killed, enslaved or imprisoned our people on the ships. At that time altho we had formed the country we hadn't elected our first President. So John Adams (and someone else famous) were sent over to London to confront their ambassador about these actions. And the ambassadors answer and our response is what enlightened me and how it relates to modern times. "You are all infidels and have no rights and we won't stop until you are all gone."

Adams brings this message back to the powers here. He and Jefferson get into a real debate over the issue. Adams says they are a huge problem! But if we take to fighting them its going to get ugly and last a long time and was against action. Jefferson argued we need to eradicate them now because they pose a on ongoing threat that would just get bigger and bigger. Better to deal with it now. So one of his first actions when he became president was to send the marines and mercenaries to the shores of Tripoli to confront them.

Ironic? No factual all the way thru today.

Then add the perfectly written Homeland script into exactly where we are today and you find that while you all hate Chaney / Jefferson they are most likely right. Better deal with them now because they are getting Bigger, bolder and stronger.

[texan]

I guess the question is knowing this and knowing what the administration's position is does this have any impact on your thinking at all?

[southwest88]

Then add the perfectly written Homeland script into exactly where we are today and you find that while you all hate Chaney / Jefferson they are most likely right. Better deal with them now because they are getting Bigger, bolder and stronger.


I guess the question is knowing this and knowing what the administration's position is does this have any impact on your thinking at all?

Chaney meaning Pres. W's VP Cheney? Pres. W pulled Pres. H. Bush's military & foreign policy people out of retirement & put them back into harness. But Pres. W had no independent experience like Pres. H. Bush - W. wasn't a war hero, hadn't served as DCIA, hadn't been ambassador to China, owned 2% of a TX baseball team, etc. With no political/policy direction @ the top, W's staff simply ran amok. VP Cheney himself knew better under Pres. H. Bush than to invade Iraq the first time, in the Coalition-Iraq war (or @ least, Pres. H. Bush & admin restrained Cheney - then Sec. Def.)

The second time, with a weak executive, VP Cheney & staff & PNAC & all the straphangers on were able to take direct action against Iraq & Afghanistan. With the results that we see now.

Pres. Jefferson was brilliant - likely the brightest president we've had to date. VP Cheney was an operative, a cunning in-fighter, a behind-the-scenes person. He got things done - like selecting himself as the perfect VP for W. & his foreign policy & petroleum policy choices have been just as blighted.

Islam as a political force is spent - they seem to be stuck in the church/state conundrum, & they don't seem to be willing or able to resolve the question. In the West, it took centuries, the Reformation & all the civil & religious strife to resolve. Islam has been declining as a political force since @ least 1492CE. The Ottoman Empire hung on for a very long time, as the Sick Man of Europe, until they made disastrous choices in WWI - & were partitioned by all the winners.

Pres. Jefferson saw that Islam was falling, & that the West - & the US in particular - was rising. He took the tide @ its flood, & we've done well militarily ever since. Our diplomacy hasn't been as clear-eyed since, but you only get a Jefferson once in a while.

[texan]

Yes Dick Chaney......I do not agree with your assessment, but I guess one opinion is as good as the next. Chaney wasn't HW's VP, he was W's VP big difference! You fail to delineate the position difference because the theory you have won't add up completely if you did. What makes you think W was weak other than you obviously don't like him?

The democrats executed a marketing plan to the public that pushed everyone into believing the man was an empty suit, I don't believe it he was at all. Also, Chaney didn't select himself, that too is a convenient add on to push a hypothetical narrative. Now we get a complete falsity, the Chaney basically went around everyone and took direct action. They did not and the facts prove this.................Bush was not a puppet. In fact many things Bush stated are coming home to roost.

Nonetheless, Jefferson and Chaney are of the exact same opinion which was the basis of my question. Chaney is correct and BTW Jefferson didn't see them failing he saw them as a future growing issue. he was right as is Chaney.

[southwest88]

Yes Dick Chaney......I do not agree with your assessment, but I guess one opinion is as good as the next. Chaney wasn't HW's VP, he was W's VP big difference! You fail to delineate the position difference because the theory you have won't add up completely if you did. What makes you think W was weak other than you obviously don't like him?

...


Cheney usually spells his name with 2 e's. Yah, he was Sec. Def. under Pres. H. Bush, as I noted.

As for Pres. W - OK, other than the War on Terror, what did he do in office?

[Chris]

Comparing then with now, I'd say the following contrast stands out: Back then we pretty much minded our own business and didn't meddle in foreign affairs unless, obviously, provoked to act in self-defense. Nowadays we're always intervening where we don't belong.

[texan]

Cheney usually spells his name with 2 e's. Yah, he was Sec. Def. under Pres. H. Bush, as I noted.

As for Pres. W - OK, other than the War on Terror, what did he do in office?

Thanks for the spelling correction, everyone loves those.

He went to the congress 4 times and warned we had a housing issue bubbling as early as 2003 that needed to be addressed immediately and was rebuked by the democrats because Fannie and Freddie was a dem cash cow. Since people blame him for that thanks to the marketing that's kind of an important fact. Not to mention the we were in a recession when he came in and was able to restart the economy.

How many times will you avoid my original question?

[southwest88]

Thanks for the spelling correction, everyone loves those.

He went to the congress 4 times and warned we had a housing issue bubbling as early as 2003 that needed to be addressed immediately and was rebuked by the democrats because Fannie and Freddie was a dem cash cow. Since people blame him for that thanks to the marketing that's kind of an important fact. Not to mention the we were in a recession when he came in and was able to restart the economy.

How many times will you avoid my original question?

This question?

"What makes you think W was weak other than you obviously don't like him?"

Sure. I look @ what Pres. W. did before he was president, what he did during presidency, & what he's done since.

He didn't have much of a track record before the presidency, TX has a weak executive system. W was a fair student @ college, didn't distinguish himself in TX ANG, nor in business. As he campaigned for the GOP presidential nomination, he did lock up enough big money & political support commitments to bulldoze the opposition. Probably a mistake, I think he would have done better to have campaigned more & harder, rather than running by remote control. He also picked up most of Pres. H. Bush's military & foreign policy personnel.

During presidency, 09/11 was the signal event. That & maybe No Child Left Behind, the national public school testing program - useful for charting individual progress, class & school progress. As I recall, the public education community wasn't that wild about the time & effort required to implement, but it did provide data to compare class to class, school to school. The Individual Education Plan that could be developed from the data could be useful, but I'm not sure that that phase was implemented everywhere (that's not a criticism of Pres. W, BTW).

Since presidency - he doesn't do much, TMK. He's taken up painting, he does some speeches here & there. Have I missed anything?