Talk:1st Battalion, 4th Marines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraq War vs. GWOT[edit]

Ok, once again because Looper5920 doesn't like to justify his/her reverts: The Iraq War has nothing to do with GWOT, except that it created a lot of terrorist where none were before. Until you add this line of thought, please avoid to revert my improvements on the article's structure. Thank you. --

  • It is your opinion that Iraq has increased terrorists. The US military considers the Iraq war as part of the Global War on Terror and their awards reflect that. Since this page is about about a US military unit it should remain.--Looper5920 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my opinion that Iraq has increased terrorists, but that the US attack on Iraq did. This is obvious. However, none of this matters. What matters is that the given reason for the war was the impending doom by the huge Iraqi WMD stockpile, and that little to none pre-war connections between terrorists and the Iraqi regime were found. This is simply not part of the GWOT, whatever the US government claims.
Also, this is not a DOD publication, so what the US mili considers might be interesting, but is certainly not decisive. Of course this is also true for articles about itself or any segments. To illustrate this point, would you want to let Saddam decide what his article says about him?

Looper, please stop destroying the improvements I made on the article. If you disagree, use this page to discuss them. --

  • No one is destroying anything. You are the one that began changing the article prior to discussing it with anyone. As far as the US military is concerned OIF falls under the Global War on Terror. This can be seen in the fact that they issue the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for service during OIF. Thus as far as this unit is concerned their service in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. While may disagree it does not change the fact--Looper5920 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article because it was faulty. Be bold, remember?
As far as the Wikipedia is concerned, the US military is not the final authority. Also, repeating that point after I already addressed it does not make it more true. --
My point on the US military was not to say the they are the final authority but rather that there opinion carries as much weight anyone else and should not be disgarded just because they are the US military. With that in mind articles referencing US military units should reflect this. Much the same way that articles on British topics use British "English" spellings. --Looper5920 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say they should be ignored. In this case however, there is no basis for the claim that the Iraq War has anything to do with GWOT. Even the reason given by the US government is different. --
I like the way you pick a fight. By using different IP addresses you immunize yourself from the 3RR you just nominated me for. I guess you are just some random individual who happens to be extremly familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia regulations on just your 3rd edit. Amazing. The 2003 invasion of Iraq refers to just that - the invasion. 1/4 has done multiple deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So the title alone that you are using is incorrect. Bottomline is that OIF falls under GWOT. Your edits are not improvements they are incorrect. I will revert again--Looper5920 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by not breaking 3RR I immunize myself from 3RR.
I never claimed that this would be my third edit. My guess is something in the lower four figures actually. Why does this matter?
You're right, this is not only about the invasion. I'll change the text to cover this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Good solution, Looper. I'm happy that we found something we could both live with. --

If you look here ( ) it clearly states "Iraq had been listed as a state sponsor of international terrorism by the United States since 1990[57], when Saddam Hussein fell out of US favor" so I'm a bit confused why there's an argument. Regardless of any stated reasons for going into this conflict, which there are certainly many of, the fact remains that the US Military was engaging an opposing state (Iraq) currently classified by the United States as being connected to global terrorism. Since the entire basis for the terms War on Terror, Global War on Terror, and War on Terrorism is the set of policies and operations enacted by the George W. Bush administration, in the United States, the United States qualification of Iraq as a state sponsor of international terrorism seems relevant. To lay all of this out in a clear line, US attack on US-classified state sponsor of terrorism clearly falls under US-designated GWOT -- regardless of particular stated reasons for engagement. -- phreyan


Is it true that they're nicknamed the 'quarter', being the 1/4, or a fourth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old question, but I was stationed with 1/4 from '91-'93 and I never heard anyone refer to the battalion as "quarter". We were always 'one-four'. MrSilva (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1st Battalion, 4th Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]