Right....so lets get in bussiness:
Ironically, the Marines aren't the "strongest" force the US has in terms of sheer manpower. The Army is probably ten times bigger, or more.
Well, I meant it more like: 1 Marine soldier >>>>> 1 army soldier, but yeah, sometimes size (or better say population) DOES matter.
But if the US were to send, say, 1000 men into war, Marines would be much more effective than the Army.
By that I mean that Marine units maneuver on the battalion level, while Army units maneuver on the regiment or brigade level. The Navy and Air Force don't really have a comparable mission to either the Marines or the Army; the Navy and Air Force are more oriented towards gaining and maintaining sea and air superiority (respectively). The Army is oriented towards holding ground, or large-scale maneuver warfare, whilst the Marines are oriented around purely offensive operations.
That's not to say a Marine unit is incapable of defending a position, far from it. Just that their modus operandi is oriented towards establishing temporary bases for logistics support, whilst forward elements are tracking and engaging the enemy, along with the main body of the force.
Basically, the Marines are the tip of the spear, like I said.
1. I disagree; mainly because terrorist attacks against US soil have occured; September 11, 2001 is the prime example. Planes were suicide-piloted into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and nearly the White House. Such an attack could quite possibly have decapitated quite a substantial portion of the US government.
2. I doubt the national security issues are really propoganda. Really, the security issue is that there are small groups who happen to hate America for whatever reason, and these groups are trying to get their hands on weapons that can do significant damage to targets on US soil.
A national security issue can also be in the form of a sensitive information leak, like Julian Assaunge (sp?). You know why Assaunge isn't airing Russia's or China's classified docs? Cuz they'd kill 'im, plain and simple.
Incidentally, if Ronald Reagan were president right now, Assaunge would be dead. Reagan didn't mess around when it came to ensuring America was protected from anyone who could, directly or indirectly, hurt it.
3. Morally speaking, that's arguably true; however, I disagree with the idea. Here's why:
An efficient killer will generally kill only the person(s) who are confirmed as "the bad guys". The idea is that the efficient killer is able to use only the force required to kill, and not any more or less. An inefficient killer will either not use enough force to kill, thus leaving the "bad guys" alive, or he'll use to much, and possibly cause collateral damage.
In my mind, at least, an efficient killer would be capable of eliminating all hostile forces with zero, or unfortunately failing that, minimal collateral damage. So an efficient killer is better; they have a much less risk of causing collateral damage, in the form of property destruction, or more importantly, civilian deaths.
4. Well, that really depends. Has this terrorist group actually harmed or stated an intention to harm the United States? If so, then yes, the American people would be behind a president that has claimed to have lessened or eliminated said terrorist group. If he's lying, he's pretty much screwed. If the group hasn't done anything to America then it's a bit iffy.
On the one hand, who knows if said group might not have declared ill intentions against America. OTOH, who knows if said group might have been formed to destabilize a corrupt government, and replace it.
The thing about killing, is that sometimes, there's simply no other way to fix a problem.
As for the idea that profit/status/career comes before morality/ethics/sanctity of life, well, we live in a fallen world, wracked with sin. The placement of profit and status over morality and human life isn't the problem, it's the symptom. That's not to say those things aren't bad, just that they aren't the uber-huge problem lots of people make it out to be.
1. Sure thing buddy. Keep telling yourself that 
Too bad we cant find proof about anything regarding 9/11, but then again, if we could, we would prove that the 9/11 was in fact executed by CIA, supported by the US government of course.
Anyway, the 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, it didnt have to do with the Al-Qaenta, the Taliban, or any other "terrorist" group that is believed to be out there, it was one big fat propaganda, and it was 100% a success. Good work, good work indeed 
2. Even if somehow we could accept that the 9/11 was a terrorist attack (which it wasnt, but w/e), that wasnt an invasion. Quite far from it actually. In fact, these planes killing people in US soil, could only be expressed as a couple of flies/bees stinging a big Tyranosaur Rex. The thing barely even felt the stings, while it was busy killing and eating the weaker, smaller dinosaurs. See what I mean?
"Really, the security issue is that there are small groups who happen to hate America for whatever reason"
For whatever reason!!! LOLZ 
Dude, are you serious here?
Ok, first of all, the whole "some certain groups of people who hate america" thing, is really backed up and supported by the US government. Why? You dont know why? Because that fits in their plans, serves their purposes, and help them keep doing what they're doing.
To be more specific, giving an example: When there are so-called terrorists, somewhere in Irak or Afghanistan (for instance), where happens to be certain valuable resources in that country, like oil, and these terrorists hate America, and want to destroy it, for whatever reason, the USA doesnt need any more excuses than this, to go in there, kill people, destroy everything, steal resources and everything valuable, and then rebuild everything, allowing its big multinational companies to literally take over the country.
Yeah, these people are god damn crazy. I dunno why the hell they hate america so much
Damn, I wish I could explain everything to you Whiskey, but I cant. You see, its a waste of my time, since you're not going to believe anything anyway.
3. First of all, there are no bad guys, there's a bad society. Secondly, there's no need to kill anyone, especially the "bad guys". The "bad guys" like you say, are not problems of our society, and shouldnt be handled as such. They are in fact mere symptoms of our society, and not only we arent even attempting of eliminating the roots of the problems that caused these symptoms, but instead we are treating them with force, fighting fire with fire, trying to heal an open would with a small bandage, ignoring the fact that these wounds are only a side effect of internal bleeding, and the body is slowly dying from it.
Hope you got that metaphor. If you did, then you know exactly what I mean.
So, an efficient killer, and an inefficient killer, are essentially, literally, the same thing. They are both killers, and thats what matters. They believe that by taking someone elses life, will bring peace and prosperity, or happiness, or solve a problem, or do something good in the long term. That is 100% false. Do I REALLY need to explain why?
In fact, we are all killers, and nobody is a killer at the same time. Kudos if you know what I mean.
4. Whiskey, honestly: Do you really want to go in a debate on whether the "terrorists" have done more evil/killed more people, than the USA? Please, dont even go there, because A. The US government have cause more harm in the world that any other "terrorist" group, and B. I would have to really lower my level of intelligence in order to start blaming certain groups of people, trying to decide which of them are good and which are bad.
Please, the US government and every government in the world care about only 2 things: More power, and maintaining and holding their position.
The US president isnt elected to change anything, he is placed there to keep things are they are. Keep his country at the top (maintain and hold position), and give it more power if possible.
And I have no idea why people are so brain-washed to think that there is any form of freedom in our current society. Maybe its because we have created the best self-destruct system ever, that not only will lead to our extinction really fast, but also makes us support it.
Everything in our currect society makes absolutely no sense at all. From the most basic things, to the smallest details.
But you know what bothers me the most? People have such little trust in others, that not only they wont believe anything other than what they've taught or manipulated to believe (thus keeping a close mind), but also they dont even want to hear anything else that is outside of their little bubble. Thinking outside the box is, for some reason, the worst thing that can happen to them. But then comes along social manipulation and forms of mass scale propaganda, and thats a different story.
Anyway, it all comes down to this:
1. What do humans need to survive?
2. And how can we ensure survival but living a prosperous life, minimizing pain and suffering?
3. Make up our minds and do it.
Yes, it is that simple in theory. The only problem is that it usually takes a very long time for a society/culture to move on to the next level.
And right now, we are in a transition phase, but the problem is, that we are stuck in that phase for far too long. From the Ancient times of uncivilized and technologically poor man, to the Iron Age, the Dark Ages, the Industrial Revolution, to what we have now. Which is, technological advancement of the next era to come, but social and mental advancement of the previous era.
Let us hope that this thing is only a phase, that will pass, and that sometime we will advance as a society, civilization, and a species, eventually. If we dont exterminate ourselves/the planet in the process, that is
Wars are not noble or good (although the media often portrays them that way) they are simply a part of life
They are not part of life, they are part of our species' society, and we accept that, because we have been taught that "thats the way it is", or "there are some bad people that only want to do harm to the world".
