- 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
What is the Justification For Having an Army, Navy, AND a Marine Corps?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:16 am
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:16 am
Seems in light of our massive military budget, this age of government over-spending, and too many people on the government tit, we should be cutting money where it can actually make a difference: defense spending.
Keeping a redundant department for the sake of tradition seems a little outdated, and terribly expensive. Common sense would dictate trimming down the DOD to a more practical structure.
Every time I deploy with other branches, I always wonder what exactly the Marines do that requires them to have their own department within the Navy. In the modern Army, Naval Infantry is hardly needed, especially with the Army's Quick Reaction Force or any one of our Airborne Brigades (Especially ones in the 82d).
They are outstanding Americans, and I have always enjoyed serving with them, but they never bring anything to the fight that the Army or Navy does't already have. It's a question of pure economics. I've served with a handful of Marines through several years of service, in both joint environments and in mainly Navy environments where I was the outsider. The enlisted were able to complete most tasks assigned, and many of the officers could have probably been Soldiers.
Consolidate their jobs into both the Navy and Army respectively, where appropriate.
I'm sick of "conservatives" bashing Obama all the while never taking responsibility for a DOD that hemorrhages money. Here's a quick way to knock out billions each year.
Thoughts form those who actually have an understanding of the capabilities/requirements of our military?
edit: title. USMC is technically the Navy
Keeping a redundant department for the sake of tradition seems a little outdated, and terribly expensive. Common sense would dictate trimming down the DOD to a more practical structure.
Every time I deploy with other branches, I always wonder what exactly the Marines do that requires them to have their own department within the Navy. In the modern Army, Naval Infantry is hardly needed, especially with the Army's Quick Reaction Force or any one of our Airborne Brigades (Especially ones in the 82d).
They are outstanding Americans, and I have always enjoyed serving with them, but they never bring anything to the fight that the Army or Navy does't already have. It's a question of pure economics. I've served with a handful of Marines through several years of service, in both joint environments and in mainly Navy environments where I was the outsider. The enlisted were able to complete most tasks assigned, and many of the officers could have probably been Soldiers.
Consolidate their jobs into both the Navy and Army respectively, where appropriate.
I'm sick of "conservatives" bashing Obama all the while never taking responsibility for a DOD that hemorrhages money. Here's a quick way to knock out billions each year.
Thoughts form those who actually have an understanding of the capabilities/requirements of our military?
edit: title. USMC is technically the Navy
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 12:17 pm
43
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:17 am to Poncho
Sigh
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:17 am to Poncho
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:17 am to Poncho
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 11:20 am
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:18 am to Poncho
quote:
and too many people on the government tit,
There's the real fricking problem.. And with crazy ragheads ready to kills us all the time.. frick You and a defense cut
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:18 am to Poncho
What is the justification for starting a shitty thread?
To be badass of course. 'Merica.
To be badass of course. 'Merica.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:19 am to Poncho
"both"
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:19 am to Poncho
quote:
What is the Justification For Having Both an Army, Navy, and a Marine Corps?
This is where you lost me. You suck.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:19 am to Poncho
This is one of those posts where I wish it was something someone said at a bar so I could witness the outcome
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:19 am to Poncho
Why do we have the seals, ranger and delta?
It's not something you question if you wanna live
It's not something you question if you wanna live
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:20 am to Poncho
quote:
What is the Justification For Having Both an Army, Navy, and a Marine Corps? by Poncho
So 10 year old boys can talk shite to each other about which one is more badass.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:20 am to Poncho
C'mon man. I'm a democrat but if you can't see the need for specialization in an organization as large as the American military...
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 11:21 am
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:20 am to Poncho
aren't the marines a branch of the navy? is that what you mean by consolidating them?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:21 am to Poncho
What is the justification of having both a pencil and a pen? It can't be that one is better suited to certain tasks than the other.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:23 am to Phil A Sheo
Why are so many people bashing the OP for asking why we shouldn't restructure our military to make it more efficient. It doesn't sound like he is saying we should scale back our defenses, but rather rethink the structure to cut costs, eliminate redundancies, and improve it overall. It baffles me that anyone would think that is a dumb idea. If you disagree, explain why.
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 11:28 am
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:24 am to Poncho
quote:
Seems in light of our massive military budget, this age of government over-spending, and too many people on the government tit, we should be cutting money where it can actually make a difference: defense spending.
Keeping a redundant department for the sake of tradition seems a little outdated, and terribly expensive. Common sense would dictate trimming down the DOD to a more practical structure.
Every time I deploy with other branches, I always wonder what exactly the Marines do that requires them to have their own department within the Navy. In the modern Army, Naval Infantry is hardly needed, especially with the Army's Quick Reaction Force or any one of our Airborne Brigades (Especially the 82d).
They are outstanding Americans, and I have always enjoyed serving with them, but they never bring anything to the fight that the Army or Navy does't already have. It's a question of pure economics. I've served with a handful of Marines through several years of service, in both joint environments and in mainly Navy environments where I was the outsider. The enlisted were able to complete most tasks assigned, and many of the officers could have probably been Soldiers.
Consolidate their jobs into both the Navy and Army respectively, where appropriate.
I'm sick of "conservatives" bashing Obama all the while never taking responsibility for a DOD that hemorrhages money. Here's a quick way to knock out billions each year.
Thoughts form those who actually have an understanding of the capabilities/requirements of our military?
1. The 82nd Airborne is now and always has been a division, not a brigade. You should know the difference.
2. The Marines are trained for short, sharp amphibious operations that are quite different from the missions the army is called on to do.
3. Even if the DOD were to do away with the Marine Corps, the only thing that would accomplish is make the current Marines change their uniforms and repaint their vehicles and aircraft. You'd not be saving one dime because we'd still have to have those forces that are now Marines. All you'd be doing is changing their name, which is stupid.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:25 am to Poncho
The Marines Suck at football Apparently. If anyone has to go it should be them.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:25 am to SUB
B/c the OP is a dickbag and doesn't deserve anything else.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 11:27 am to Poncho
Cutting out an entire branch is not the answer, but we do waste billions a year in updating antiquated notions of military strength (like we're really going to get into a tank war in 2016?) that we are extremely unlikely to utilize.
And you're right in that this nonsense takes up WAY WAY WAY more of the budget than food stamps do.
Where were these so called "fiscal conservatives" when we wasted a trillion dollars under the last GOP administration on our last Middle Eastern adventure?
And you're right in that this nonsense takes up WAY WAY WAY more of the budget than food stamps do.
Where were these so called "fiscal conservatives" when we wasted a trillion dollars under the last GOP administration on our last Middle Eastern adventure?
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 11:28 am
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News