Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (358264)	4/7/2010 11:22:55 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Yes, they would have to fight Marines and Special Forces too. No liberal has the vinegar for that. :) * * *

To: ManyMoose who wrote (358264)	4/8/2010 4:41:27 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

Oh yeah, there will be one hell of a fight with any moron who proposes getting rid of the Marines. Politics aside, it may be worth a look. There are a lot of very expensive redundancies and duplications in the Army and USMC, all with huge cost saving potential. What unique capabilities does the USMC add to the equation? Once the USMC gets 15 miles away from shore and out of range of on ship indirect fire, they rely on the army. The Army has done more and bigger amphibious assaults. Only the Army has the trucks, heavy armor, and self-propelled artillery needed for on-shore fire and maneuver. You can call the new combined force the USMC. That should make everyone happy...except West Point. IMO West Point has no further use and should be one of the very expensive institutions closed down. We needed WP to train engineers to build roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, etc., as we developed our wild western frontier. We have little need for that now. Since WWII WP graduates have proven themselves to not be capable of becoming war winners