DOD budget: Save $29 billion. Eliminate Marine Corps

[kwc57]

Why is it absurd? You wanna cut spending or not?

Constitutionally speaking, the one thing the Government is supposed to spend our Taxes on IS the Military, everything else not so much.

They said the 'military'. I don't think they foresaw the Marine Corps. They were thinking more of the Army. There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'Marine Corps'. Let's put them on the table!

There's nothing that says the Air Force either. We can get rid of all the planes and such and save a bunch of money right there.

 

[California Girl]

Why is it absurd? You wanna cut spending or not?

Constitutionally speaking, the one thing the Government is supposed to spend our Taxes on IS the Military, everything else not so much.

They said the 'military'. I don't think they foresaw the Marine Corps. They were thinking more of the Army. There is nothing in the Constitution that says 'Marine Corps'. Let's put them on the table!

You really are living down to your username. Congrats on that. Empty Headed Moron.

Two questions:

When was the US Constitution signed?

When was the US Marine Corps established?

Now tell me they didn't 'foresee' the Marine Corps.

******* idiot.

 

[Borillar]

Cut the DHS, TSA, DEA, and ATF. Legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution and tax the hell out of them.

As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, they have a very different mission from the Army, and couldn't just be dumped. There could be considerable savings in combining training for all the armed services though, such as one boot camp for all services. Advanced training could be combined where possible - no need for separate electronics schools for the different services for instance. Also, in geographic regions where there may be multiple bases for the various services, why not consolidate where possible? There is so much duplication and waste in the armed services.

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

 

[California Girl]

As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, they have a very different mission from the Army, and couldn't just be dumped. There could be considerable savings in combining training for all the armed services though, such as one boot camp for all services. Advanced training could be combined where possible - no need for separate electronics schools for the different services for instance. Also, in geographic regions where there may be multiple bases for the various services, why not consolidate where possible? There is so much duplication and waste in the armed services.

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

Idiot.

 

[Borillar]

right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate r&d and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the marines and, arguably, the coast guard too.

why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the national defense force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

idiot.

gfy

 

[Trajan]

With all the talk about sequester and spending cuts, here's a sure fire way to save $29 billion right now: Eliminate the Marine Corps.

There's nothing they do which can't be done by the Army. It's a superfluous and redundant ground force which we really can't afford anymore.

The Marines are an amphibious fighting force. If you eliminate the Marines and replace them with Army forces, how are you saving money? You still need the same number of MEUs, or whatever the Army equivalent would be.

When's the last time we HAD to make an amphibious landing somewhere? How much are you willing to spend to maintain a force for a mission which isn't called for anymore?

And, by the way, the Army is perfectly capable of conducting amphibious operations. In fact, they've done it more than the Marines anyhow, including the largest and arguably the most successful in history at Normandy.

Quite a bit could be saved by closing down Marine bases here at home and abroad. Without a Marine Corps, we wouldn't need Pendleton or Twenty-Nine Palms or Barstow or PI.

That all sounds so easy and pat.

Not so-I am afraid you require massive injections of history and massive doses of subject matter as to the operational art(s) of warfare.


Building, supplying and sending off an invasion force from 30-40 miles away (Portsmouth, Southampton, Chichester) where in you have a solid, fully protected logistical post, unsinkable airfields ( that don't need fuel and don't move) providing virtually instantaneous, deadly and un- interfered tactical air support ( plus massive strategic sppt. as in bombing enemy rail-heads, supply dumps etc.) is very much different than say Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima etc.

You'll notice I didn't include Okinawa, if you understand the reason why I didn't then you might now understand why Marines and soldiers are different and why the distinction is wise. ( in addition if you knew some history of the US Armys 7th & 25th or 81st divisions that would help too).

 

[California Girl]

The Marines are an amphibious fighting force. If you eliminate the Marines and replace them with Army forces, how are you saving money? You still need the same number of MEUs, or whatever the Army equivalent would be.

When's the last time we HAD to make an amphibious landing somewhere? How much are you willing to spend to maintain a force for a mission which isn't called for anymore?

And, by the way, the Army is perfectly capable of conducting amphibious operations. In fact, they've done it more than the Marines anyhow, including the largest and arguably the most successful in history at Normandy.

Quite a bit could be saved by closing down Marine bases here at home and abroad. Without a Marine Corps, we wouldn't need Pendleton or Twenty-Nine Palms or Barstow or PI.

That all sounds so easy and pat.

Not so-I am afraid you require massive injections of history and massive doses of subject matter as to the operational art(s) of warfare.


Building, supplying and sending off an invasion force from 30-40 miles away (Portsmouth, Southampton, Chichester) where in you have a solid, fully protected logistical post, unsinkable airfields ( that don't need fuel and don't move) providing virtually instantaneous, deadly and un- interfered tactical air support ( plus massive strategic sppt. as in bombing enemy rail-heads, supply dumps etc.) is very much different than say Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima etc.

You'll notice I didn't include Okinawa, if you understand the reason why I didn't then you might now understand why Marines and soldiers are different and why the distinction is wise. ( in addition if you knew some history of the US Armys 7th & 25th or 81st divisions that would help too).

Unfortunately, facts are irrelevant to the old guy - and, apparently, quite a few other liberals. One of them thinks the US Constitution pre-dates the US Marine Corps... that the founders couldn't 'foresee' the USMC. If they are that stupid, their 'opinions' are really opinions... they are mindless rantings.

 

[tjvh]

As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, they have a very different mission from the Army, and couldn't just be dumped. There could be considerable savings in combining training for all the armed services though, such as one boot camp for all services. Advanced training could be combined where possible - no need for separate electronics schools for the different services for instance. Also, in geographic regions where there may be multiple bases for the various services, why not consolidate where possible? There is so much duplication and waste in the armed services.

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

^ Whaaat ???? They are combined into one command structure, we do have combined bases, we already have ,and have had one procurement system, Naval aircraft are different than Air Force aircraft because one lands on ships, and the other one doesn't, and they have entirely different missions. The Navy and the Coast Guard serve two entirely different roles. This is why people who don't understand the Military need to have an understanding of what they're talking about, rather than just stupid ideological rants. but the same uniforms? Please... This isn't exactly Star Trek. Now beam yourself up Scotty, because you are one serious space cadet.

 

[Freemason9]

This is exactly why there can be no meaningful deficit reduction.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

With all the talk about sequester and spending cuts, here's a sure fire way to save $29 billion right now: Eliminate the Marine Corps.

There's nothing they do which can't be done by the Army. It's a superfluous and redundant ground force which we really can't afford anymore.

Actually, this does make some sense. The U.S. Army is second to none, and the marines could easily be replaced by armored cavalry units and/or naval attachments.

Of course, I don't think history has ever recorded any successful attempt at reducing the size and belly of the U.S. military corporation.

The US Army is second to the Marine Corps. A few APCs can't replace the training, discipline, or fighting spirit that Marines have.

I have a better idea. How about we get rid of the army and transition them into the Marine Corps? Or even better yet, let's eliminate waste and shut down foreign bases before we even talk about eliminating an entire branch of the US military.

 

[California Girl]

This is exactly why there can be no meaningful deficit reduction.

Sure there can. Accept the Constitutionality of the US Military and the unconstitutionality of the majority of crap that drains this country's economic health... and cut that crap. Not hard.

 

[Freemason9]

This is exactly why there can be no meaningful deficit reduction.

Sure there can. Accept the Constitutionality of the US Military and the unconstitutionality of the majority of crap that drains this country's economic health... and cut that crap. Not hard.

Are you on meth? What in the **** does that dusty old "constitution" have to do with governance, finance, and economic policy in 2013?

Wake up for ****'s sake.

 

[emptystep]

Can somebody justify keeping the Marine Corps?

You were serious??? And I got flamed for my comments. At least it was good for something.

 

[Desperado]

let's eliminate waste and shut down foreign bases before we even talk about eliminating an entire branch of the US military.

Bingo!!!!!

 

[California Girl]

This is exactly why there can be no meaningful deficit reduction.

Sure there can. Accept the Constitutionality of the US Military and the unconstitutionality of the majority of crap that drains this country's economic health... and cut that crap. Not hard.

Are you on meth? What in the **** does that dusty old "constitution" have to do with governance, finance, and economic policy in 2013?

Wake up for ****'s sake.

That document created what used to be the greatest nation on this planet. Adhered to properly, it would remain the greatest nation. Unfortunately, people like you are too lazy and stupid to get that.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sure there can. Accept the Constitutionality of the US Military and the unconstitutionality of the majority of crap that drains this country's economic health... and cut that crap. Not hard.

Are you on meth? What in the **** does that dusty old "constitution" have to do with governance, finance, and economic policy in 2013?

Wake up for ****'s sake.

That document created what used to be the greatest nation on this planet. Adhered to properly, it would remain the greatest nation. Unfortunately, people like you are too lazy and stupid to get that.

Unfortunately for him, the Constitution is in his way, thank God.

 

[Borillar]

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

^ Whaaat ???? They are combined into one command structure, we do have combined bases, we already have ,and have had one procurement system, Naval aircraft are different than Air Force aircraft because one lands on ships, and the other one doesn't, and they have entirely different missions. The Navy and the Coast Guard serve two entirely different roles. This is why people who don't understand the Military need to have an understanding of what they're talking about, rather than just stupid ideological rants. but the same uniforms? Please... This isn't exactly Star Trek. Now beam yourself up Scotty, because you are one serious space cadet.

Really? So the Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't competing for $$$? When I was in the Navy, I didn't see any Soldiers or Air Force pukes on any of the bases I was stationed at. As I was an Avionics tech for F-14 Tomcats, I am well aware that some fighters can land on Carriers and some can't. No need to be condescending. Why can't an F-18 perform the same role as an F-15 or F-16? Do we need all three aircraft when one could do all three missions? Why couldn't the Navy absorb the coastal defense tasks of the Coast Guard? And uniforms are probably the least important item in the list. Fatigues for a working uniform and Khakis for working dress. Use Marine's Dress Blues for full dress uniform.

 

[jtpr312]

Let's see what some of the finest US Army Generals, US Presidents and most importantly some of our enemies had to say about my beloved Corps.

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a MARINE and his rifle!"
GEN. PERSHING, US.ARMY

"I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." (General Douglas MacArthur, USA, outskirts of Seoul, 21 September 1950.)

"I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like brilliant, it would really be an under-description of the absolutely superb job they did in breaching the so-called impenetrable barrier. . .Absolutely superb operation, a textbook, and I think it'll be studied for many, many years to come as the way to do it." (General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, USA, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 27 February 1991.)

"The more MARINES I have around the better I like it!"
GEN. MARK CLARK, U.S. ARMY

"I can never again see a UNITED STATES MARINE without experiencing a feeling of reverence."
GEN. JOHNSON, U.S. ARMY

"Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the AMERICAN MARINES."
CAPTURED NORTH KOREAN MAJOR

“If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.”
General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea,

“Do not attack the First Marine Division. Leave the yellowlegs alone. Strike the American Army.” Orders given to Communist troops in the Korean War; shortly afterward, the Marines were ordered to not wear their khaki leggings.

"They (Marines) have given us our only real fight." Commanding Officer of the British, War 0f 1812

"The American Marines are terribly reckless fellows... they would make very good storm troopers." Unidentified German officer at Belleau Wood

"We have two companies of MARINES running all over this island and thousands of ARMY troops doing nothing!"
GEN JOHN VESSEY, CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS

"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of MARINES. LORD, how they could fight!"
MAJGEN FRANK LOWE, US.ARMY

Roger that George, and even an Army guy like me has to admit that it is always best to have a Devil Dog unit on your flank in combat because that's one flank you don't have to worry about. Here's a true story: In 2003 when the Marines and the Army 3d Infantry Division had taken down Baghdad and had truck convoys scattered all the way into Kuwait, I was a plans officer at USCENTCOM when our intelligence intercepted an order from the Iraqi insurgency commander. It was a field order to all the insurgent unit commanders and it went something like this:

"Resistance Commanders, When attacking supply and truck units you must be aware that there are two different American "armies":

1. The US Army which wears tan desert uniforms like this (photo of a
Soldier wearing the old desert uniform); and.

2. The US Marine Corps which wears a different uniform like this (photo of a Marine wearing the newly issued USMC digital uniform).

When planning your attacks on supply lines and truck convoys ensure that you do NOT attack a US Marine unit. If you do, these supply-unit Marines will immediately act like Army infantry and they will attack you and hunt every one of your men down and kill them. The US Army truck and supply units will not pursue you. Attack them instead."

As deeply embarrassing as that was to the entire US Army, it was a long time coming. As an Infantryman, I know that in the past 25 years we trained the hell out of our active duty combat units but we let the rest
of the force waste away. The Army has a long ways to go, but we have rectified some of these problems in the past four years. It's just sad that we had to let the enemy tell us how screwed up we were.

VR,

Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918

 

[DiamondDave]

Right, and that pretty much speaks to the whole point of my suggestion. We not only have duplicate training sites, duplicate R&D and duplicate procurement, we actually have a duplicate force in the Marines and, arguably, the Coast Guard too.

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

^ Whaaat ???? They are combined into one command structure, we do have combined bases, we already have ,and have had one procurement system, Naval aircraft are different than Air Force aircraft because one lands on ships, and the other one doesn't, and they have entirely different missions. The Navy and the Coast Guard serve two entirely different roles. This is why people who don't understand the Military need to have an understanding of what they're talking about, rather than just stupid ideological rants. but the same uniforms? Please... This isn't exactly Star Trek. Now beam yourself up Scotty, because you are one serious space cadet.

The dolt is a major troll.. nothing more nothing less

 

[DiamondDave]

Why not just combine all the services into one command structure then? Call it the National Defense Force. Then you could have one uniform, combined bases, one procurement system rather than competing ones. I'm sure traditionalists wouldn't like it, but it would save a hell of a lot of money. There wouldn't be a need for umtyump different fighters and bombers. Just adopt equipment that would work anywhere.

^ Whaaat ???? They are combined into one command structure, we do have combined bases, we already have ,and have had one procurement system, Naval aircraft are different than Air Force aircraft because one lands on ships, and the other one doesn't, and they have entirely different missions. The Navy and the Coast Guard serve two entirely different roles. This is why people who don't understand the Military need to have an understanding of what they're talking about, rather than just stupid ideological rants. but the same uniforms? Please... This isn't exactly Star Trek. Now beam yourself up Scotty, because you are one serious space cadet.

Really? So the Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't competing for $$$? When I was in the Navy, I didn't see any Soldiers or Air Force pukes on any of the bases I was stationed at. As I was an Avionics tech for F-14 Tomcats, I am well aware that some fighters can land on Carriers and some can't. No need to be condescending. Why can't an F-18 perform the same role as an F-15 or F-16? Do we need all three aircraft when one could do all three missions? Why couldn't the Navy absorb the coastal defense tasks of the Coast Guard? And uniforms are probably the least important item in the list. Fatigues for a working uniform and Khakis for working dress. Use Marine's Dress Blues for full dress uniform.

Which shows you are a liar, and an idiot... The main place I was stationed had personnel from 4 of the 5 military branches... and it was/is not the only one... The rest of your shit is... well.. shit... per usual for you, troll