- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 6:48 pm to asurob1
Posted on 1/25/14 at 6:48 pm to asurob1
quote:
Why? Because it's important to protect your budget?
Because the Army doesn't have the same quick-acting capabilities of the Marine Corps.
quote:
Answer me this, I'm a bit of a student of the 2nd World War but I do not know the answer.
How many marine units stormed the beaches of Normandy? North Africa? Italy?
It wasn't as many as the other services. However, as you sit there and talk about how we shouldn't talk about fighting wars that aren't entirely ours...
The Marine Corps is the main reason why we won our war in the Pacific. Which is where the vast majority of WWII Marines deployed and fought at. Which as a student of WWII, you know this.
quote:
One again, i see a lot of pride here. But are you going to sit here and say if we disband the Marine Corp, then the Army is going to start losing wars?
Not exactly. What I am saying is that they will not have the same efficiency in mission success as the Marine Corps.
quote:
A lot of paratroopers would disagree with this.
And a paratrooper (and frankly most other special-ops sections of other branches) has a mindset very similar to that of a basic Marine. I'll repeat, a special ops operator in another branch will have a similar mindset to that of a BASIC Marine.
quote:
I often say the best defense is a good offense, but not so much here unless you are in favor of attacking our enemies before they show their hand.
So no, Marines are not good for the "defense" of our nation.
Well, that's completely wrong, because MEUs float until the enemy has shown their hand. Then we get involved.
So you deployed, and never saw direct combat.
Let me ask, Army or Air Force?
2
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:12 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
There's a difference between the Marine and the soldier. Losing the Marine Corps will mean that mindset dies that has allowed us to be so successful in our mission. The Army will never be able to duplicate what the Marine Corps has.
This zoombag agrees FWIW. Jarheads are a national treasure. Maybe I'm influenced by my great uncle jarheads who were at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. They were two tough sumbitches. One got a Silver Star and a battlefield promotion going up Mt Suribachi, and the other one was struck by a bolt of lightning riding back on a mule from a cotton field before he went to Guadalcanal and fought at the Battle of Alligator Creek.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:22 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
It wasn't as many as the other services. However, as you sit there and talk about how we shouldn't talk about fighting wars that aren't entirely ours...
The Marine Corps is the main reason why we won our war in the Pacific. Which is where the vast majority of WWII Marines deployed and fought at. Which as a student of WWII, you know this.
Are you going to argue that the Pacific War wasn't "our" war. I mean the Japanese did attack us directly.
quote:
Not exactly. What I am saying is that they will not have the same efficiency in mission success as the Marine Corps.
So you do believe they are capable of accomplishing missions with some success. And given the proper ...we will call it ..."marine training" equal to the marines.
quote:
And a paratrooper (and frankly most other special-ops sections of other branches) has a mindset very similar to that of a basic Marine. I'll repeat, a special ops operator in another branch will have a similar mindset to that of a BASIC Marine.
So say army rangers would probably be a good unit to turn to...in a world without Marines? You are making my point for me.
quote:
Let me ask, Army or Air Force?
Navy
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:25 pm to son of arlo
quote:
This zoombag agrees FWIW. Jarheads are a national treasure. Maybe I'm influenced by my great uncle jarheads who were at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. They were two tough sumbitches. One got a Silver Star and a battlefield promotion going up Mt Suribachi, and the other one was struck by a bolt of lightning riding back on a mule from a cotton field before he went to Guadalcanal and fought at the Battle of Alligator Creek
Again, different world. Further, were they marines before Pearl Harbor? Or were they civilians who responded well to training when our armed forced expaned by 1000-fold?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:36 pm to asurob1
quote:
Are you going to argue that the Pacific War wasn't "our" war. I mean the Japanese did attack us directly.
It was actually in response to your comment about Marines in Normandy, North Africa, etc. We were fighting our war.
quote:
So you do believe they are capable of accomplishing missions with some success. And given the proper ...we will call it ..."marine training" equal to the marines.
Capable of some success and having the same success of the USMC is completely different. It's not just about getting the job done, it's about getting as many people home as you can. And we are better at it.
quote:
So say army rangers would probably be a good unit to turn to...in a world without Marines? You are making my point for me.
Well, considering the Rangers are pretty much "Army Marines", yeah. Except for the fact that they don't have 200,000 Rangers to meet the same capabilities of us. Right?
quote:
Navy
Okay. So you probably didn't do much with other branches aside from the Corps, and a few stragglers here and there, correct?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:10 pm to NOLA1128
My point is that we should not police the world. Empires crumble when they do. They can't afford it so they devalue their currency.
We are not king of the world like after WWII. I am not a liberal. Life long Republican. We should be much more isolationist. We have a national govt that is not worthy of our dedicated troops. We send them to battle with their hands tied. We should not asked them to get their legs blown off unless they are defending our home land. We we leave our shores to fight we become the fool at the poker table. Why did our soldiers die in Korea and Vietnam and the last two gulf wars? Punish countries whom harbor terrorists from the air. Why are we sending troops? Are we really going to send them to defend Poland or Taiwan ?
We are not king of the world like after WWII. I am not a liberal. Life long Republican. We should be much more isolationist. We have a national govt that is not worthy of our dedicated troops. We send them to battle with their hands tied. We should not asked them to get their legs blown off unless they are defending our home land. We we leave our shores to fight we become the fool at the poker table. Why did our soldiers die in Korea and Vietnam and the last two gulf wars? Punish countries whom harbor terrorists from the air. Why are we sending troops? Are we really going to send them to defend Poland or Taiwan ?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:23 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
Also, you could at least spell Corps correctly if you're going to disrespect my Corps. We're already being substantially reduced in both numbers of personnel (look at what we'll be at by 2016), and funding (the Commandant actually released a letter this past fiscal year basically saying we were coming up on financial numbers that tremendously effect our combat readiness and tried to calm Marines down). Like usual, the Corps will continue to do more with less.
I'm in the Army myself but I agree. Both branches are about to be extremely bad off. The Army and the Corps are about to be shrunk to an unprecedented number.
Yet, both branches will continue to support ongoing operations in North Africa and the Middle East with the expected results as what both branches had personnel wise at the height of GWOT.
So, I'll ask again. Is there still a legitimate threat? If so, shrink the DA Civilian force.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:26 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
Also, you could at least spell Corps correctly if you're going to disrespect my Corps. We're already being substantially reduced in both numbers of personnel (look at what we'll be at by 2016), and funding (the Commandant actually released a letter this past fiscal year basically saying we were coming up on financial numbers that tremendously effect our combat readiness and tried to calm Marines down). Like usual, the Corps will continue to do more with less.
Good. You need your funding cut even more actually.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:28 pm to zeebo
quote:
In my old age I believe less and less in sending troops over seas. Saving South Korea is not a high enough priority to justify our troops staying there as hostages.
South Korea is the only country where I think our troops should remain, and we should also land an aircraft carrier off their shore. I don't think it will happen, but if shite breaks out between China and Japan, South Korea will come in handy, and maintaining our bases is incredibly important for that.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:33 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
South Korea is the only country where I think our troops should remain,
Most of the places we have troops/facilities are for our benefit as much if not more than for the host nations.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:38 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Most of the places we have troops/facilities are for our benefit as much if not more than for the host nations.
I doubt Germany and Japan would tell you the same. SK is the only country I can think of where we're stationed that this is the case. I'd especially not only pull out if Pakistan completely, but cut of trade with them. They are treacherous allies and are waiting to kill us in our sleep.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:45 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I doubt Germany and Japan would tell you the same.
Are you serious? The Germans and Japanese know exactly why we are there.
quote:
SK is the only country I can think of where we're stationed that this is the case
You have it arse backwards the troops in SK are almost all for the benefit of SK it is the end of the funnel not a logistal base for contingent deployment.
quote:
I'd especially not only pull out if
Pakistan completely
What do you think we have in Pakistan? We use Pakistan to get material into Afghanistan cheaper,m we can't fly everything into the place. We are dealing with Pakistan for our interests.
quote:
but cut of trade with them.
Stupid
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:49 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Are you serious? The Germans and Japanese know exactly why we are there.
Yeah, WWII, but who gives a shite about that now?
quote:
What do you think we have in Pakistan? We use Pakistan to get material into Afghanistan cheaper,m we can't fly everything into the place. We are dealing with Pakistan for our interests.
Why are we still in Afghanistan? We should be finished with them.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 9:09 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Yeah, WWII, but who gives a shite about that now?
Our facilities in Germany and Japan are for our logistical and strategic reasons. When we want to blow shite up it is helpful to have logistical bases.
quote:
Why are we still in Afghanistan? We should be finished with them.
That should be a different thread, but the fact that Obama is still in Afghanistan means Pakistan is essential to our support of whatever the shite his objective is there.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 10:02 pm to asurob1
quote:
In today's world the Marine Corp really isn't necessary. (I'd say the same, frankly, about US Navy Seals, but they have proven time and time again they are the best operators in the world when it comes to getting at difficult targets something which might be able to be folded into Delta but that's beyond my paygrade or knowledge base).
it makes more sense to have a Navy and Marine Corps and to disband the active duty Army. The Constitution actually says something about maintaining a Navy. It doesn't say that about an army. The Marine Corps is an extension of the Navy. That's it's intended purpose even though it's been used as a land army lately. And SEALs are for sll intents and purposes, marines. Notice I used the little m there.
We should keep a strong Navy and Marine Corps to protect the sea lanes and redpond quickly. And have a strong and capable National Guard to be called upon in the event of a major war. We may need to keep a small active duty Air Force component to maintain our strategic nuclear weapons. The rest of it can be folded into the guard as well.
This plan will save money and keep us ftom being tempted into policing the world while st the same time having a quick crisis response force backed by a large and powerful national guard ready to be called upon.
This post was edited on 1/25/14 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 1/25/14 at 10:05 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
We should keep a strong Navy and Marine Corps to protect the sea lanes and redpond quickly. And have a strong and capable National Guard to be called upon in the event of a major war. We may need to keep a small active duty Air Force component to maintain our strategic nuclear weapons. The rest of it can be folded into the guard as well.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 11:14 pm to Jbird
And this thread illustrates perfectly why it's impossible to cut defense spending.
Each service will come in and defend it's turf trying to justify it's existence.
I guess we will have to settle for being able to kick the arse of the next 9 military powers on the list.
Each service will come in and defend it's turf trying to justify it's existence.
I guess we will have to settle for being able to kick the arse of the next 9 military powers on the list.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 2:14 am to Jbird
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:53 am
Posted on 1/26/14 at 2:39 am to NOLA1128
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 1/26/14 at 7:17 am to bigblake
going down to only 2 carriers on station at any given time
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News