- 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 12:53 pm to Poncho
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:53 pm to Poncho
quote:
It's redundant because the Army can do that (and better).
I've served in both. The Army sucks dude. Their officers especially. The only thing the Army has going for it is its massive size and ability to show up with a frick ton of equipment.
0
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:54 pm to Poncho
OP is stupid, ignorant and not worth a lengthy response.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:54 pm to Poncho
You left off the USAF and USCG. What about them?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:56 pm to 13SaintTiger
Was the Iraqi military defeated? Was the Saddam Regime removed from power? Yes. These are military goals. And they were capable of being accomplished.
Can the US military stomp out all international crime? Can the US military change the culture of an entire region and establish a stable government in a foreign country? These are the vague goals of the so called "War on Terrorism" that you are criticizing the military for not winning. It is an ideological war that has no endgame and no real objectives to complete. Is this a war that any military can ever win? No.
Saying that the military is inefficient because it could not reach an impossible goal is a red herring, and it has no place in this conversation. I'm sure the military wastes money and fricks up. That is a stupid argument though.
Can the US military stomp out all international crime? Can the US military change the culture of an entire region and establish a stable government in a foreign country? These are the vague goals of the so called "War on Terrorism" that you are criticizing the military for not winning. It is an ideological war that has no endgame and no real objectives to complete. Is this a war that any military can ever win? No.
Saying that the military is inefficient because it could not reach an impossible goal is a red herring, and it has no place in this conversation. I'm sure the military wastes money and fricks up. That is a stupid argument though.
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 1/15/16 at 12:58 pm to MWP
You just made his afternoon. He's been waiting patiently for somebody to notice that he was lowercasing it.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:00 pm to Poncho
quote:
but the marines don't have the striking power or efficiency of Army Airborne Brigades or the QRF.
Do you know what a MEU is? If you don't I'll learn you on it. It's short for Marine Expeditionary Unit. And what a MEU is is pretty much an entire unit (battalion) sitting on Navy ships all over the world. The sole primary of a MEU is if something were to go down, the Marines could be the first there to assault whatever it is they need to assault. The Marines were the tip of the spear in Iraq, came in and handled business that the Army couldn't handle in Fallujah, same with Afghanistan. There's nothing wrong with what the Army does. It's just that the USMC is America's force in readiness and QRF.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:04 pm to DoUrden
quote:
Marines, looking for a few good men because they don't have any.
Haha glad to see you're one of the few that can see sarcasm.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:05 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Frankky, we should do away with the Active Army and Air Force
National Guard and reserves is perfectly capable of filling the role of the army when it's needed but what happens to the more specialized units that the army has like say delta? Does that fall under active?
Air Force is needed. Very few things projects power like flying a B-52 from Barksdale to halfway around the world to do bombing runs and flying back Barksdale. They also are the workhorses of the military dealing with logistics worldwide.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:08 pm to Poncho
quote:
and too many people on the government tit,
The problem is social spending. Not defense spending. That protects us all.
We should stop giving money to sorry arse scum who wont get a job. Dont have babies if you cant afford to feed them.
Why exactly should I be expected to pay for someone elses existence?
Screw them. Let them starve,
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:08 pm to Sentrius
quote:
National Guard and reserves is perfectly capable of filling the role of the army when it's needed but what happens to the more specialized units that the army has like say delta? Does that fall under active?
We have SEALs and Marine Recon. The real loss would be the Green Berets. They're the best soldiers in the world.
quote:
Air Force is needed. Very few things projects power like flying a B-52 from Barksdale to halfway around the world to do bombing runs and flying back Barksdale. They also are the workhorses of the military dealing with logistics worldwide.
Air Force is still needed for now. But it would be far more efficient to invest in better surface to surface missiles launched from ships at sea than to maintain a large bomber fleet that has a massive logistical trail, requires country over flight permission, and can be shot down in enemy territory.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:17 pm to Poncho
They have the fanciest dress blues and also sponsor a school in Harlingen, TX that parents can send their disobedient kids to.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:23 pm to prince of fools
quote:
For the same reason that the Marines had to clean up the Army's mess in Fallujah and Korengal you dickhead.
Um, what? You know the Army was in the Korengal after the Marines, right? I don't put blame on either service for that, but if anything, it was the other way around.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:25 pm to Poncho
Football teams have receivers, running backs, linemen AND defensive backs! Why not just 11 running backs?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:26 pm to Poncho
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:28 pm to Peazey
quote:
Was the Iraqi military defeated? Was the Saddam Regime removed from power? Yes. These are military goals. And they were capable of being accomplished.
Only one of those were a military goal and it amounted to a potentially worse fate. Our military goals in these recent wars, not engagements as you want to conveniently call it, are another reason why we are operating inefficiently. As I stated before, fighting a complex enemy with a outdated complicated system.
quote:
Can the US military stomp out all international crime? Can the US military change the culture of an entire region and establish a stable government in a foreign country? These are the vague goals of the so called "War on Terrorism" that you are criticizing the military for not winning. It is an ideological war that has no endgame and no real objectives to complete. Is this a war that any military can ever win? No.
You are intentionally obtuse. I'm not criticizing the military for not winning, I'm criticizing our inefficiencies. We can do a better job at fighting an issue that will only continue to get worse. Terrorism in this day and age isn't something you just live with and say it's a wasted effort or compare it to war on drugs, that's fricking stupid. You are part of the problem, you probably think the next global war will be like ww2 or some shite.
quote:
Saying that the military is inefficient because it could not reach an impossible goal is a red herring, and it has no place in this conversation. I'm sure the military wastes money and fricks up. That is a stupid argument though
I'll say this. Combatting terrorism seems impossible to you because you're military knowledge is stagnant and elementary. Yea, trying to fight a complex system on fallacies is impossible. I have first hand knowledge of our inefficiencies, and our current command structure is at the forefront of it. It leads to unnecessary micromanagement and wasted resources. The purpose of our military is to defend our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic and that includes terrorist which is our current enemy. We don't need to cut forces as the op is saying, we need to restructure them and take advantage of our advancements, not let them hinder us or be a disadvantage to us.
ETA: your gripes about the war on terrorism being futile, and us continuing to fight it is a prime definition of being inefficient, so either you are trolling or do not know the definition of inefficient
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:32 pm to 13SaintTiger
Fold the Army, Keep the Marines
How can we trust you to win a war if you can't even win a football game?
How can we trust you to win a war if you can't even win a football game?
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:35 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
We have SEALs and Marine Recon. The real loss would be the Green Berets. They're the best soldiers in the world.
Why don't we combine Marine Raiders, Recon, and SEALs into one? Seems feasible if you ask me.
This post was edited on 1/15/16 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:44 pm to Sentrius
quote:
National Guard and reserves is perfectly capable of filling the role of the army
No it's not.
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:46 pm to Poncho
quote:
Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Posted on 1/15/16 at 1:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
No it's not.
Yea, that was ludicrous statement. The whole talk of getting rid of any of our services is ludicrous.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News