- 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: What is the Justification For Having an Army, Navy, AND a Marine Corps?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:07 pm to 13SaintTiger
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:07 pm to 13SaintTiger
I'm not saying the military is perfectly efficient, but that isn't the reason we didn't "win" the engagements in Afghanistan or Iraq or the "War on Terrorism." Military goals were met. The reasons we didn't "win" is political and not dissimilar from the reason we haven't "won" the war on drugs.
It's a simple, fool's point.
2
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:08 pm to BoatSchoolTiger
quote:
Corps is an expeditionary fighting force, until the Army (slow and heavy) can operate like an expeditionary force this discussion of consolidating the Corps is pointless.
This. In my time in the Corps I've noticed that we're the attacking force (first to fight) and focus MUCH more on small unit tactics. While the army is the sustaining element.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:08 pm to Poncho
quote:
What is the Justification
The Constitution, you dumb arse.
The Commander in Chief has a Constitutional obligation to provide a national defense,
What the frick did they teach you in school?
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:10 pm to Peazey
quote:
I'm not saying the military is perfectly efficient, but that isn't the reason we didn't "win" the engagements in Afghanistan or Iraq or the "War on Terrorism." Military goals were met. The reasons we didn't "win" is political and not dissimilar from the reason we haven't "won" the war on drugs.
It's a simple, fool's point.
Do some research. You are in way above your head. Our military is very inefficient versus our recent and current enemies. Politics is an easy copout and only part of the issue. I love when folks like you assert your opinions with no factual base to it. It's comical. "Military goals were met". You don't even know what that means, and you probably don't even know what they are but that's a different rabbit hole.
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:10 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:That may work with your recruiting efforts, but the marines don't have the striking power or efficiency of Army Airborne Brigades or the QRF.
first to fight
I learned long ago the Army is always the first in, last out with any and every one of our operations. 
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:12 pm to Poncho
quote:
or the QRF
Which QRF?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:14 pm to Poncho
No Navy, no Starfleet.
No Marine Corps, no Space Marines.
We got the future covered, the Army can shut down any time they like.
No Marine Corps, no Space Marines.
We got the future covered, the Army can shut down any time they like.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:15 pm to Topwater Trout
I never said it wasn't running as efficiently as possible, but it's a huge stretch to assume any government agency is running as possible.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:15 pm to Poncho
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:16 pm to Poncho
quote:
Poncho
You suck.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:17 pm to Poncho
quote:
That may work with your recruiting efforts, but the marines don't have the striking power or efficiency of Army Airborne Brigades or the QRF.
Wow! You really have not read about the Army's very recent fumbling around with OLW plan for DoD's shift to the Pacific?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:18 pm to Peazey
Do you even know what a MEU is? How many Expeditionary units does the army have floating offshore to scare shithole countries into cooperating?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:18 pm to Darth_Vader
Every branch of the military has non combat roles and administrative people and costs, right? A big part of the cost savings would be eliminating redundancies, is what I would expect. How much would be saved, I have no clue.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:34 pm to prince of fools
It's redundant because the Army can do that (and better).
And the marines can't go anywhere without the Navy.
And the marines can't go anywhere without the Navy.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:36 pm to Poncho
quote:
Poncho
You are obtuse.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:46 pm to Poncho
Don't worry. By 2020, it'll all be one branch of the government.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:47 pm to Poncho
quote:
And the marines can't go anywhere without the Navy
It's Marines, jackarse.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:48 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
We're a department of the navy....the men's department.
Marines, looking for a few good men because they don't have any.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:48 pm 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
quote:
too many people on the government tit
quote:
people on the government tit
quote:I think we have an answer.
government tit
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:51 pm to Poncho
The constitution calls for maintaining a Navy, of which the Marine Corps is a part. It doesn't call for an Army.
Frankky, we should do away with the Active Army and Air Force and keep the Navy and Marine Corps.
Frankky, we should do away with the Active Army and Air Force and keep the Navy and Marine Corps.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News