It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Few. The Proud. The Marines ... Getting a Makeover?

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Airspoon sir,
I frequently enjoy your posts, so take this as my grain of salt.
You sir Army, myself Marine Corps, neither better at any task assined.
Why? both bleed suprisingly easy. My only correction is to the specifics of your last post about what tasks the Marine Corps is best at. Only because, ALL branches are capable of training by the machine. As you now this a requirement of the machine. Capability and fitness. Only history and tradition separate any branch. History and tradition in training. Emphasis on training ie; brainwashing. I believe sir that is why you and I are on this site. Only when properly brainwashed can you understand the whole process, and begin to throw up flags to other humans. Which i might say sir, as I have previously stated, I enjoy your commentary.
Just wanted to put a jarhead perspective on a jarhead subject.

HAIL THE STATE




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by godsenddeath
 


Hey buddy, in no way was I trying to imply that those types of operations are the only ones Marines are good at. Rather, I was only implying that those are the operations done best and only (to some extent) by the Marines. I believe I was replying to someone who said the Army wasn't needed and the Marines could take their place instead.

In this day in age, due to mission standards set by technology (among other things), the Army and Marine Corps have the same operational requirments and types of missions, save for a few of those I listed in the other post for the Marines and others I didn't list for the Army.

Again, I wasn't trying to imply that those were the only things done by the Marines or even that those are the only things done good by the Marines, only that those are things done better by the Marines.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Wow, triple post!





-----

[edit on 23-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
TP



--------

[edit on 23-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
i was a marine, we were taught then, now this was 30yrs ago, we are the 1st to fight, we go in, kick ass and take names and let the army and every body else come in and mop up. we are the presidents own the only branch he can send with out congress being in voled.

also the way it was then if you went through marine corps boot camp, and you joined another branch, you didn't have too go through their basic training. but if you come from another branch you had to do ours.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I've got more in common with an 11B than I did with Marine pogues, so I'll preface with that. However, that's pretty cute how you manage to disregard my entire branch Airspoon. The tidbits about how were delegated to guarding embassies and prisons, and beach assaults. How, we receive training fromt he Army.

Well, of course we get some training from the Army, you operate more schools because of the larger budget. I have many friends who attended Army jump schools, or technical schools on Army bases. That is a budget concern, it has nothing to do with proficiency.

There is a reason the Marine Corps has managed to still exist after nearly 250 years of mandated fewer numbers and a lower budget. There is a reason why the Marine Corps get put into hotspots, most recently Al-Anbar province and the assaults in Afghanistan. If the Army had the monopoly on light-infantry assault troops, and highly deployable, independent and, more importantly, self-reliant expeditionary units, we would have been shut down long ago.

Every branch has it's role, and the Marine Corps remains the US military's ace up the sleeve.

If Mr. Gates feels the Marine Corps is losing it's roots, it's because the face of war is shifting. Urbanization and insurgency warfare is taking precedence over beach assaults.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
i was a marine, we were taught then, now this was 30yrs ago, we are the 1st to fight, we go in, kick ass and take names and let the army and every body else come in and mop up. we are the presidents own the only branch he can send with out congress being in voled.

also the way it was then if you went through marine corps boot camp, and you joined another branch, you didn't have too go through their basic training. but if you come from another branch you had to do ours.


I don't think it is that way any longer (if it ever was). Let me tell ya, when I was in the Army, my Army unit was deployed to Afghanistan as the first military unit in country. One of our missions to was to assualt and sieze the airport at Kandahar. We had a hell of time and it was awefully tough (remember, this was before Americans were used to war). It turns out, we were only securing the airport so that the Marines and Press could fly in. The press then made a big deal about the Marines landing and have now earned a foothold in the country. Not one single mention of my Army unit who just went through a sustained and very tough tactical gun battle, so that the Marines could fly in on their chartered aircraft with zero resistance.

We fought, they got the glory. That's often how it turns out. It's nothing against those Marines as I'm sure they would have been willing to fight along with us. I'm just saying how glory is often distributed wrongly. With that being said, I had trained along side a lot of Marine and fought along side even more. Branch was not an issue and if it wasn't for the uniforms - and weapons - nobody would have even noticed a difference.

--airspoon

[edit on 23-8-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I am also a former Marine from 35 years ago.I was never assigned ship duty either,but I guarded nuclear weapons being loaded to submarines.We were always locked and loaded.I was happy and proud to serve,and as screwed up as the U.S has become I feel it is still a great Country.We had a saying then that sure we were a department of the Navy.The MENS department! lol. I have great respect and admiration for all of our branches as they all do a tremendous job.Semper Fi.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gainsayer
 


That's not what I was saying at all. If you read my post a few posts up from yours, you would see that's not what I was saying. Your reading my comment out of context.

I was replying to another member who said the Army is no longer needed because the Marines are better at the Army's job. I was simply trying to state the only the things that the Marines are better than the Army at.

This member also said that the Marines should train the Army, so I was simply cluing him in that it is the other way around and the Army trains *some Marines. In fact, to get technical, a very few Marines actually do train Army soldiers and I know this because I had a Marine instructor for "Pathfinder". However, t he vast majority of the time, it is the Army training the Marines (between the two).

Again, you didn't get the context of my comment.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
(In reference to the Kandahar airport story)

I can cite numerous examples (some personal) of Marines taking over Army AO's in Iraq because of their inability to secure them....for example Fallujah. I'm not interested in getting into a predictable and overplayed Army/USMC pissing contest. Like I said, I have more in common with 11B's in the Army than I do with most Marines.

Just know, if you're going to only paint one side of the picture, someone will assuredly paint the other half.
---------------------

If your comments were taken out of context, I'll take your word for it. It came off as insult, though.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gainsayer]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
appologies for the firefight.
I can only speak as a devil dog in fallujah '04. And yes Gainsayer, taking over an Army AO. Even still, History and Tradition dictate. I was just attempting to place my jarhead perspective on a jarhead subject. Which due to the fact I am always a jarhead, it will manifest its self in any subject with the acronym U.S.M.C.
I cant however say I dont enjoy debating the subject.
As I said in above posts Marines are all over the world as we speak. Performing thier assigned task as per the DoD.
This will not change soon.

HAIL THE STATE



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
There is certainly no need for argument between any of us, and I have not meant to fuel any bickering. I'm just sticking up for our Corps, and citing it's exploits if the same will be done of the Army.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by -Blackout-
 


Yes we invaded a desert country in amphibious assault vehicles... though to our credit, we still toppled them with extreme ease ..

I think using the Marines away from water is ok if it's a supportive strike .. like the innitial days of the war, but once the Government fell and the Army officially began running Martial Law, the Marines should have been withdrawn. They should be an emergency based force used for WAR, not occupation.

That's the Army/Reserves and Airforces job - occupation.

We never should have stood for stationing Marines in Iraq to patrol around in humvees in places like Faluja like common Army soldiers and reservist....



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Technically, it isn't the Army's or Air Force's job anymore than it is the Marine's job. If martial law is instituted, it should be the military police (of all branches). What your saying, is that Marines should be used a quick reaction or strike force and some Marine units are supposed to be just that, just as some Army units do too. However, this isn't the difference between a Marine and a soldier. Really, the only differences between the two force's charter, is one is so-called "land based", while the other is so-called "sea based". Of course this is much more defined on a unit by unit basis. Many army units are equipped and trained for strikes, as opposed to drawn out battles, yet there they sit, year after year.

With that being said, sometimes the mission calls for a different hat, so to speak. This is why you see cooks pulling gaurd duty, Marine infantry policing the street or paratroopers launching from an aircraft carrier.

So, while occupying Iraq may not be the job of a Marine, it isn't any more suited to a soldier either but it is what it is.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
That's very interesting Puck, because the facts don't support you at all.

The Marine Corps mainly had control of Al-Anbar province, which being Sunni dominated, experienced some of the stiffest and most fundamental opposition. Ramadi and Fallujah were the most dangerous cities along with Baghdad (under Army control) and some of the most pivotal moments of the insurgency happened in these cities.
The Marine Corps not only effectively stamped out the insurgency in these areas, but also managed to convince the local tribal leaders that it was in their country's interest to oppose terrorism.
The 'Awakening' movement in Iraq, which saw droves of former Iraqi insurgents switch sides, was pivotal in the current state of semi-stability in Iraq. This all took place in Marine AO's orchestrated by Marine presence. Why? I believe that the Sunni Arab's there, sick of oppression and skeptical of American intentions, finally realized that our goal was their goal. Peace and stability.

Modern military theorizing puts it at 15 years to suppress an insurgency as a foreign power. Yet, the Marine Corps managed to do it in 5 years. Baghdad, granted being a huge city, was still largely not under control.

Our motto as 'west coast' Marines is "No better friend, No worse enemy" and over time, the Iraqi's truly began to realize that and respect us as such.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The reason they put marines everywhere is because marines are walking talking cans of whoop ass that goes into hell, kicks whatever in the balls, blows their heads off, then goes onto something worse.

And it's expected of them.

Hard to do that aboard a ship, it's not like there's beaches to be stormed anywhere right now, sure, if there were beaches that needed to be stormed, the Marines would be the ones to do it, but there aren't.

Just my take on it.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Seems like they are cutting down with every branch of the military. I know the Air Force just recently let quite a few Airmen go. Just goes to show the anti-war/anti-military people that people do support us and what we do!



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
If the USMC is getting to big then why did they just recently decide to make it bigger? I remember shortly before I finished my active duty service in Nov 2008 the Commandant, General Conway visited my base and told us all about how the government is expanding the corps. It was all over the MarineTimes and other Marine publications as well I'm sure. What did they do recruit to many? Bonuses to good?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
They are offering people early opt-out's on their contracts now.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gainsayer
 


That does not suprise me. Im curious as to who these opt-outs are offered to.
my appologies earlier if my comments seemed directed at you. You have definatly layed out the Corps exploits, at least what I experienced. Fallujah, hell the whole sunni triangle, was enough Corps history to fill a library.
I sometimes wonder what history recruits are yelling about Fallujah.




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join