Desperate times: Marines told to 'save every round'

[Norm0931]

He backed it up pretty good in his follow up post.

Keith

Saying, Alaska doesn't count because it's not in the contiguous US, Texas doesn't count because despite the fact that they were still US citizens, they weren't part of the US (which if you notice I made a note about that being arguable), the Mexican-American War not counting because California was not part of the US (which is wrong, California was not a state but, California AND New Mexico were both considered part of the US by Congress, and the Civil War doesn't count because it was a civil war. Sorry the Confederacy only invaded the North AFTER declaring themselves a sovereign nation and being attacked by the Union Army. Saying, "Well that doesn't count" is not a defense.

 

[JVK]

 

[trainsktg]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then Norm.

No other country has so many soldiers stationed in so many different countries around the world than the US does. Other superpowers like China and Russia don't, yet they aren't being invaded (neither are they actively invading anyone else that I can determine). It seems that only the US and their European allies are the ones continuously playing chess with other countries under the pretext of keeping everyone at home safe.

Keith

 

[3MTA3]

We can argue all we want to about whether or not troops should or should not be deployed. The fact is that if we send them in harm's way we need to take care of them. Period. It's asinine to spend money on new DHS uniforms and ammo they will probably (hopefully) never fire when troops in the field getting shot at have to worry about ammunition supplies.

 

[trainsktg]

We can argue all we want to about whether or not troops should or should not be deployed. The fact is that if we send them in harm's way we need to take care of them. Period. It's asinine to spend money on new DHS uniforms and ammo they will probably (hopefully) never fire when troops in the field getting shot at have to worry about ammunition supplies.

No argument there Sir, but that's a matter of how the bureaucracy prioritizes the money, not how much more or less tax money should be appropriated. If we all just happily ponied up like they want, they'd waste it elsewhere and the troops would still get it in the rear.

Keith

 

[Norm0931]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then Norm.

No other country has so many soldiers stationed in so many different countries around the world than the US does. Other superpowers like China and Russia don't, yet they aren't being invaded (neither are they actively invading anyone else that I can determine). It seems that only the US and their European allies are the ones continuously playing chess with other countries under the pretext of keeping everyone at home safe.

Keith

I agree we don't need troops stationed around the world, Keith. I'm all for closing bases around the globe. Nothing I said had anything to do with closing US bases overseas. He said having our military at the same size as before World War 1 was all we needed. That is incorrect. Furthermore, he has no background in military doctrine or tactics to base this on. I wouldn't know how many people you need on say a NASCAR pit crew. Or how many people are needed to run a major murder investigation. Ergo I don't say, "You don't need that many people. In 1872 a guy defended someone for murder by himself!"

He kept saying that because he didn't agree with going to war in Afghanistan or Iraq that our military was not a deterrent to nations that want to invade the US. You can't tell me that the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, China, and all the other nations that hate America in the world have not invaded the US because they don't like the climate. Going to war in Afghan or Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the deterrence that our military force provides.

However, gutting our military of equipment, training ammunition, and education is stupid and irresponsible. I'm ALL for closing bases overseas and bringing troops back to America. I am against downsizing and cutting of training and equipment budgets though. Agree with the reasons or not, our military will go to war again and the body count will be higher if we keep the same 40-50 year old equipment we currently have in service. If you want to talk to your representatives about changing the R&D and Acquisition policies of the DoD go right ahead, I have several times.

 

[dmancornell]

Oh, suddenly US interests don't count because you don't want them to. And Alaska doesn't count because it's not connected to the US. PRICELESS. So if someone breaks in to your office and jacks your cell phone out of your desk, it doesn't count because it wasn't at your house. Wow, you should apply to work in Obama's cabinet. You could arrange his press briefing about how Bengazi didn't count because it was in Libya!

Nah, not suddenly. I've included the word "contiguous" in every post. Alaska did not become a State until 1959. And Guam is is nothing more than a military base, the sole reason for our presence due to the military-industrial complex.

And speaking of Alaska, the campaign to liberate the Aleutians from Japanese control suffered more casualties from "friendly fire" than actual Japanese opposition, since the Japanese already evacuated the islands. Now, let's see if you can use that example to argue for a massive bloated army.

 

[Norm0931]

I'm done responding to your Portland hipster drivel. You think your freedom is an entitlement and you can live in your fantasy world.

 

[dmancornell]

Saying, Alaska doesn't count because it's not in the contiguous US, Texas doesn't count because despite the fact that they were still US citizens, they weren't part of the US (which if you notice I made a note about that being arguable), the Mexican-American War not counting because California was not part of the US (which is wrong, California was not a state but, California AND New Mexico were both considered part of the US by Congress, and the Civil War doesn't count because it was a civil war. Sorry the Confederacy only invaded the North AFTER declaring themselves a sovereign nation and being attacked by the Union Army. Saying, "Well that doesn't count" is not a defense.

In regards to Texas, so if US citizens in Mexico are accosted by Mexican soldiers, that means Mexico just declared war on the US? LOL.

Your history of California is laughable. That is all.

By the way, France, with its enormous standing army, was invaded by Germany in WW2. Switzerland, which has no standing army at all, has not been invaded in centuries. Here's a shocking idea: wars are the result of psychotic evil politicians, the presence of standing armies is irrelevant.

 

[dmancornell]

As for my signature line, hopefully you never have to see combat like the majority of delusional kind. Peace is only an outcome of war.

LOL.

Invading Iraq for no legitimate reason, demanding total compliance (albeit with tears in your eyes), then threatening to murder all of them if they resist, that is the proven path to peace. Another LOL for good measure.

 

[coop44]

actually, "screwing with the troops" a commanding officers favorite passtime, seems the more likely reason for the statement in the OP. (Marines, with their limited mental capacity are probably perfect targets for such abuse.) The 3 percent cut made mandatory by the sequestration will not likely cause a shortage of anything.

Probably only pulls back spending levels a few years, if that far. The military, like congress spends money like either drunken sailors or whores, depending on your point of view.

 

[Norm0931]

LOL.

Yeah, because invading Iraq for no legitimate reason, demanding total compliance (albeit with tears in your eyes), then threatening to murder all of them if they resist, that is the proven path to peace.

I could continue to argue with your BS logic and blind hatred of the military because you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong. That you know more about the military than people in the military because you think the military is mean and the wars are wrong. I could point out that the cities of Hiroshima, Nagaski, and Dresden were all examples of how naked violence ended war. However, to do so would be pointless for 2 reasons. First, hipsters like you who think anything to do with the military is already evil and pre-disposed to not listen to reason and to not have an actual discussion. Secondly, this entire discussion VIOLATES FORUM POLICIES ABOUT POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS NOT INVOLVING FIREARMS!

 

[Norm0931]

actually, "screwing with the troops" a commanding officers favorite passtime, seems the more likely reason for the statement in the OP. (Marines, with their limited mental capacity are probably perfect targets for such abuse.) The 3 percent cut made mandatory by the sequestration will not likely cause a shortage of anything.

Probably only pulls back spending levels a few years, if that far. The military, like congress spends money like either drunken sailors or whores, depending on your point of view.

FYI, the Marine Corps has the highest ASVAB requirement for any service.

 

[dmancornell]

I could continue to argue with your BS logic and blind hatred of the military because you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong. That you know more about the military than people in the military because you think the military is mean and the wars are wrong. I could point out that the cities of Hiroshima, Nagaski, and Dresden were all examples of how naked violence ended war. However, to do so would be pointless for 2 reasons. First, hipsters like you who think anything to do with the military is already evil and pre-disposed to not listen to reason and to not have an actual discussion. Secondly, this entire discussion VIOLATES FORUM POLICIES ABOUT POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS NOT INVOLVING FIREARMS!

Japan attacked the US. Germany attacked the US. Iraq did not attack the US. By your argument, the "peace" imposed by the US government on the Plains Indians after countless massacres and bloodbaths is legitimate. But please, continue with your flawless reasoning, this "hipster" is listening.

Also topic is related because of the hilarity of military brass crying about their budgets being cut slightly and having to conserve ammunition like everyone else, and the search for a solution leads to questioning the need for a grossly over-funded military.

 

[dmancornell]

FYI, the Marine Corps has the highest ASVAB requirement for any service.

Wrong again:

Minimum AFQT

Tier I	Tier II
Branch	≥ HS Diploma	= GED
Army	35	50
Navy	35	50
Air Force	40	65
Marines	32	50

 

[Norm0931]

Wrong again:

Minimum AFQT

Tier I	Tier II
Branch	≥ HS Diploma	= GED
Army	35	50
Navy	35	50
Air Force	40	65
Marines	32	50

Which is wrong. The Army's minimum score is 32 and the waiver to 25. Nice try.

And three years ago the Marine Corps raised the requirement to 36, the same as the Air Force.

 

[dmancornell]

Which is wrong. The Army's minimum score is 32 and the waiver to 25. Nice try.

So if you are right, then the USMC has the second lowest requirement of the four services, as opposed to the highest requirement. Good one.

And three years ago the Marine Corps raised the requirement to 36, the same as the Air Force.

Strange how every single source available online says 32... but hey, you're the expert.

 

[Norm0931]

Japan attacked the US. Germany attacked the US. Iraq did not attack the US. By your argument, the "peace" imposed by the US government on the Plains Indians after countless massacres and bloodbaths is legitimate. But please, continue with your flawless reasoning, this "hipster" is listening.

Also topic is related because of the hilarity of military brass crying about their budgets being cut slightly and having to conserve ammunition like everyone else, and the search for a solution leads to questioning the need for a grossly over-funded military.

Your argument against the Iraq war does not have anything to do with the violence solving conflicts. Once again, you can't just keep saying "War is bad because we invaded Iraq." What does the politic reasons for Iraq war have to do with violence ending conflicts???

That "over funded" military costs less than Medicare/Medicaid AND Social Security individually. And is barely over (only 2%) higher than "Discretionary Spending" which is spent on all sorts of crap.

 

[Norm0931]

So if you are right, then the USMC has the second lowest requirement of the four services, as opposed to the highest requirement. Good one.



Strange how every single source available online says 32... but hey, you're the expert.

Well, i did actually SERVE in the military rather than search the interwebs.

By the way, thanks for supporting the website with a supporter donation!

 

[dmancornell]

Your argument against the Iraq war does not have anything to do with the violence solving conflicts. Once again, you can't just keep saying "War is bad because we invaded Iraq." What does the politic reasons for Iraq war have to do with violence ending conflicts???

LOL, another epic strawman. No, what I'm saying is, murdering people without a damn good reason is bad. Giving GWB his place in the history books is not a good reason.

Violence can end conflicts. While true, it is also a meaningless statement, because it has no context whatsoever. Aggressors have no moral legitimacy, ergo, any violence they inflict with the goal of ending the aggression they initiated is still immoral and illegitimate.