- 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’s the functional purpose of the Army and Marines at this point?
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:14 pm to beerJeep
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:14 pm to beerJeep
Are you willing to go that far?
BTW my fat fingers on my phone severely misunderstood my intent. I meant to say that you are not in fact a moron and not a clown. That got confused. Probably has something to do with my eyesight not catching up in real time. But I don't think you're stupid by any stretch.
BTW my fat fingers on my phone severely misunderstood my intent. I meant to say that you are not in fact a moron and not a clown. That got confused. Probably has something to do with my eyesight not catching up in real time. But I don't think you're stupid by any stretch.
1
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:16 pm to Stidham8
quote:
Outside of “deterrence”, it feels as if these two branches are becoming completely useless and a giant social welfare program. “Boots on the ground” has become a political stigma associated with failure and a political landslide against whoever deploys troops.
Is there any scenario where the Army/Marines are used on the battlefield in the future? The Navy and Air Force feel like the only functional branches from this point on.
OP - it is obvious that you don't have a clue regarding military operations as well as any modicum of common sense. But, hey - keep on posting your BS.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:16 pm to Powerman
quote:
Are you willing to go that far?
I’m willing to do what is needed to win.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:20 pm to UcobiaA
quote:
How do you think Maduro was grabbed, drones?
That’s not what I’m referring to. Large numbers of soldiers from the Army/Marines were/are not deployed in Venezuela. Special forces were in an out in minutes.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:20 pm to beerJeep
quote:I posted this yesterday in a dead thread but it equally applies here----Our system itself can’t reliably produce finished wars unless the objective is narrow and short-term. Whether that’s a feature or a bug is up for debate.
Modern Americans don’t have the willpower to fight a real war which is why we haven’t fought a real war since WWII.
We’re designed to require consent, and consent has a shelf life. Long wars demand consistency across years, sometimes decades. Our system resets leadership, priorities, and tolerance for cost every election cycle.
Past empires didn’t have that constraint. Rome didn’t need to maintain public buy-in to finish a campaign. Britain didn’t run imperial wars through a population that could do anything meaningful to halt them midstream. The decision loop was tight, centralized, and insulated from the kind of political pressure that forces course changes here. They could define victory however they wanted and take as long as necessary to get there. We can't.
Our wars operate on two tracks at once: the battlefield and political ambitions. The second one eventually always dominates. Casualties, cost, and ambiguity erode support, and once that happens, the objective shifts from “win” to “end this without it looking like a loss.” That’s the pattern people keep misreading as softness.
And this is why “Americans lost the stomach for it” misplaces blame. It assumes populations in past empires were somehow more committed to long, grinding wars. They weren’t. The difference is it didn’t fricking matter. Their consent wasn’t required.
Here, they do. That’s the constraint. You can call it moral, you can call it limiting, but it’s real. So when someone says “we’ll escalate if needed,” the obvious follow-up is: to what end, and for how long? Because escalation inside a system that can’t sustain long, ambiguous conflicts isn’t a path to victory. We.ve seen this again and again.
It’s also not a coincidence that our two most brutal, sustained wars, the Civil War and World War II, were prosecuted under single administrations with continuity of leadership and total commitment. That’s the lesson: given our political constraints, the only way we reliably finish wars is by committing fully to decisive victory as fast as possible, or not starting them at all. That’s the mistake we keep making.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:20 pm to Stidham8
Are you retarded? Serious question.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:22 pm to Jbird
quote:
Can a B-2 hold a piece of property?
In a warzone. No.
As a means to stop trespassers in a non-conflict setting. Yes. If I see a b-2 parked at a property, I'm not trespassing.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:23 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So you're basing your idiotic theory that Americans will never support "boots on the ground" and we no longer need ground forces solely on the fact that they don't support them in Iran. That about right?
We’re not going to support them anywhere. Not Ukraine, not Iran, not Taiwan. Politicians have weaponized deploying troops. It is toxic.
I don’t see the Army/Marines ever fighting a war with large numbers of ground forces again.
Plus technology will phase them out.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:26 pm to Stidham8
quote:So, I'm right. Since the other two are hypothetical, and we've supported boots on the ground several times in the last 40 years, you are basing this nonsense solely on lack of support for ground forces in Iran
We’re not going to support them anywhere. Not Ukraine, not Iran, not Taiwan. Politicians have weaponized deploying troops. It is toxic.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:31 pm to Bayou Warrior 64
quote:
With regards to 'boots on the ground', if you aren't capable to be trained for airborne, ranger, or special forces type units out you go
I don’t know. I sure wouldn’t mind having a bunch of BLaMtifa types armed with whistles to use as cannon fodder.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:32 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So, I'm right. Since the other two are hypothetical, and we've supported boots on the ground several times in the last 40 years, you are basing this nonsense solely on lack of support for ground forces in Iran
LOL, Ukraine isn’t hypothetical. It didn’t happen.
We’d tuck tail the moment China went for Taiwan too. Many on this board have already said they don’t care about Taiwan. Whichever party isn’t in power would quickly mount an all out assault on whichever party in power deployed ground troops for Taiwan.
We’re more politically divided at this point in time than any time in history. What happened 20 years ago would never happen in today’s climate. It’s too toxic to use ground forces.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:37 pm to Stidham8
quote:Was it ever a real possibility?
LOL, Ukraine isn’t hypothetical. It didn’t happen.
You can't even type out that this thread is based solely on Iran because even you can tell how stupid that sounds.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:39 pm to Plx1776
Lol suppression!
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:39 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Was it ever a real possibility?
Of course it wasn’t. Politicians were scared shitless of doing it.
quote:
You can't even type out that this thread is based solely on Iran because even you can tell how stupid that sounds.
Politicians didn’t suddenly become terrified of deploying troops. It’s been brewing for the last 10-15 years by both parties.
Ukraine, Iran, Taiwan (likely within a decade) are a product of what has been building for a long time.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:41 pm to Stidham8
So, again, two hypotheticals and Iran.
So just Iran.
So just Iran.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:45 pm to northshorebamaman
We didn’t deploy ground forces in Ukraine and it’s a hypothetical. Lol
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:48 pm to Stidham8
Yeah, us not deploying them anywhere it wasn't seriously considered is hypothetical. Taking this many words to say the same stupid thing just makes it seem even dumber.
Your theory is based solely on Iran. That's it.
Your theory is based solely on Iran. That's it.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:51 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Yeah, us not deploying them anywhere it wasn't seriously considered is hypothetical. Taking this many words to say the same stupid thing just makes it seem even dumber. Your theory is based solely on Iran. That's it.
No shite it wasn’t seriously considered. That’s the whole argument.
Take a lap.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 8:53 pm to Stidham8
quote:
No shite it wasn’t seriously considered. That’s the whole argument.
Holy shite. So you supported us sending ground troops to Ukraine and because we didn't we should get rid of the army? And if you didn't support that why would you expect the majority of Americans to support it?
Posted on 4/9/26 at 9:00 pm to Stidham8
OP is an embarrassing f@g and should not be held against our fan base.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News