Army Vs Marines

Two Marines boarded a quick shuttle flight out of Dallas, headed for Houston.
One sat in the window seat, the other sat in the middle seat.

Just before take-off, an Army soldier got on and took the aisle seat next to the two Marines.

The Soldier kicked off his shoes, wiggled his toes and was settling in when the Marine in the window seat said, "I think I'll get up and get a coke."
"No problem," said the Soldier, "I'll get it for you."

While he was gone, the Marine picked up the Soldier's shoe and spit in it. When the Soldier returned with the coke, the Marine in the middle seat said, "That looks good, I think I'll have one too."

Again, the Soldier obligingly went to fetch it and while he was gone, the Marine picked up the soldier's other shoe and spit in it. The Soldier returned and they all sat back and enjoyed the rest of the short flight to Houston.

As the plane was landing, the Soldier slipped his feet into his shoes and knew immediately what had happened.

"How long must this go on?" the Soldier asked.

"This fighting between our services? This hatred? This animosity?
This spitting in shoes and peeing in cokes?"

Great joke, Go Army.

hehe. I don't get what all the fuss is about though. When people need you to weed out & be careful of civilians, you send in the army, which is more trained for casual combat. If you want to declair Martial Law, and horde everyone away till your done, you can send in the marines & they'll clean house. I don't favor one over the other, rather I just recognize which one is used for what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 198324

hehe. I don't get what all the fuss is about though. When people need you to weed out & be careful of civilians, you send in the army, which is more trained for casual combat. If you want to declair Martial Law, and horde everyone away till your done, you can send in the marines & they'll clean house. I don't favor one over the other, rather I just recognize which one is used for what.

---

Hee, hee. There is no fuss, just an innocuous interservice rivalry joke, of which ther are many. As far as your analysis of the military prowess and deployment capabilities between soldiers and marines, you couldn't be more incorrect. The fact is, with today's political correct war fighting, the doctrine of all branches is to avoid collateral damage. Soldiers and marines equally kick ass and take names when given the mission to do so, and avoid civilian confrontation whenever possible. The fact is, many soldiers and marines have suffered casualties because of this doctrine.

Your comment stating that the army is more trained for casual combat is too laughable and may be the funniest joke in this thread. I've trained both soldiers and marines and you wouldn't want to go up against either of them. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Casual combat?! Too funny dude! :lol: :laughing5: :laughing6:

Casual combat??? Wish that was how it worked. I bet you were never a soldier.[/b]

casual combat is something that you play on computer.

live fire is just a LITTLE different

:roll: :dontknow:
casual combat sounds about as logical as say, "a minor flesh wound to the brain" ...??? #-o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 198324

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gryphondo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 198324

hehe. I don't get what all the fuss is about though. When people need you to weed out & be careful of civilians, you send in the army, which is more trained for casual combat. If you want to declair Martial Law, and horde everyone away till your done, you can send in the marines & they'll clean house. I don't favor one over the other, rather I just recognize which one is used for what.

---

Hee, hee. There is no fuss, just an innocuous interservice rivalry joke, of which ther are many.Many there are. Still rivalry, it depends entirely on your definition of fuss, as you appear to have the idea of an angry pitbull with aids. As far as your analysis of the military prowess and deployment capabilities between soldiers and marines, you couldn't be more incorrect.I said nothing reguarding deployment capabilities, stated no timing, stated no general general proceedure of being deployed into combat. I don't see where in my post your reading this. The fact is, with today's political correct war fighting, the doctrine of all branches is to avoid collateral damage.I replace that with "handicap the military so NATO & the UN doesn't bitch us out, and so that warlike, hostile action isn't there for politicians to call you on. Soldiers and marines equally kick assHence my neutrality in favoratism. and take names when given the mission to do so,I don't doubt it. and avoid civilian confrontation whenever possible.That's what Martial Law, and a GTFO (get the fuck out) notice is for. The fact is, many soldiers and marines have suffered casualties because of this doctrine. Offcourse. It makes them sitting ducks, crippling their potential and disallowing them to properly engage both high & low risk threats, over political babbeling bullshit, which frequently reminds me of something out of West Point sent into Vietnam.

Your comment stating that the army is more trained for casual combat is too laughable and may be the funniest joke in this thread.Not necessarily, if you examine the past 2 conflicts (not wars, conflicts, a war is fought with a military at full strength, a conflict is a politicians way of using the military as a pawn in a collaborated game of politically correct combat action.) Between Iraq and Dessert storm, I'd say we have seen just how effective politicians can be at calling the shots on the battlefield - about as effective as a bull with titts. I've trained both soldiers and marines and you wouldn't want to go up against either of them.At least not the real ones, now the little pee pricks that read the Anarchists cook book & go to K-Mart to buy camo & supplies are just too laughable. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.agreed, roughly Casual combat?! Too funny dude! :lol: :laughing5: :laughing6:

---

My comment on casual combat seems to have become imfamous, but heres how I describe it - the kind of combat that goes on when the cameras are rolling in Iraq. Basically according to the politicians, the extent of "extreme combat" should be sitting in a lawn chair with a 92FS & a beer. You may have misconcepted my statements, as our views are very similar, but casual combat may have been a rash term for the actual implication.

Casual = handicapped, essentially.

By the way, did you hear? I heard they were allowing girl pushups in the Army for basic training now. Haven't confirmed it, but if it is true... I would be pissed.

So, no degrading intention on any service branch of the military, rather it was more bitching about UN, NATO, and politics and its pussyfooting around on a battlefield with live fire.

---

Your words in bold.
If you wish to change your initial comment to one of, "bitching about UN, NATO, and politics and its pussyfooting around on a battlefield with live fire.", so be it, but that's totally different from what you initially said.

...... you appear to have the idea of an angry pitbull with aids. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I merely pointed out that there was no fuss.

I said nothing reguarding deployment capabilities, stated no timing, stated no general general proceedure of being deployed into combat. I don't see where in my post your reading this. Perhaps you forgot your following quote: "When people need you to weed out & be careful of civilians, you send in the army, which is more trained for casual combat. If you want to declair Martial Law, and horde everyone away till your done, you can send in the marines & they'll clean house." Sending in is deploying. Stating what who is trained for and what they would do, has everything to do with procedure and capability.

That's what Martial Law, and a GTFO (get the fuck out) notice is for. Yet your erroneous comment was that, that you send in the Marines for this. You were differentiating what you recognize as to who was used for what. The fact is, given your statement, you don't have much of a reality based knowledge of who is used for what, when and how.

Not necessarily, if you examine the past 2 conflicts (not wars, conflicts, a war is fought with a military at full strength, a conflict is a politicians way of using the military as a pawn in a collaborated game of politically correct combat action.) Between Iraq and Dessert storm, I'd say we have seen just how effective politicians can be at calling the shots on the battlefield - about as effective as a bull with titts. You seem to be getting away from your initial statement my man, but I'll humor you for now. How about the past 7 conflicts, not counting the ones we don't count? The fact is we haven't fought a war/conflict at full strength since WW2. The military has been and always will be the ultimate pawn of governments regardless of military action called either a war or conflict. So what's new? The fact is that your comment stating that the army is more trained for casual combat is still too laughable.

At least not the real ones, now the little pee pricks that read the Anarchists cook book & go to K-Mart to buy camo & supplies are just too laughable. Pee pricks! Who's talking about pee prick wanna be's? I'm only talking about real soldiers and marines dude.

agreed, roughly Hah! Roughly! Anyway you want to cut it, you wouldn't want to go up against either.

The bottom line is this, you can spin what your initial comment was meant to say any way you want, but the fact is you stated that you didn't favor one or the other, but recognized which one is used for what. No offence pal, but given that statement, I have to conclude that your recognition skills are a bit wanting. Also, at the risk of repeating myself and stating the obvious, your comment stating that, "When people need you to weed out & be careful of civilians, you send in the army, which is more trained for casual combat.", is as totally ridiculous as your comment that, "If you want to declair Martial Law, and horde everyone away till your done, you can send in the marines & they'll clean house."

Even your amended definition, "Casual = handicapped, essentially.", is erroneous given the context of how your initial statement was laid out. Save it pal! Spend a little more time digging up some quality post's rather than trying to justify your initial or subsequent "infamous" remarks.

Being a former Marine and SEAL all I have to say is HOOAH, Semper Fi !!!! God bless all those past and present fighting for freedom against all foe foreign and domestic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robeef

Being a former Marine and SEAL all I have to say is HOOAH, Semper Fi !!!! God bless all those past and present fighting for freedom against all foe foreign and domestic.

---

I couldn't agree more my brother! I'll just say a quiet "De Oppresso Liber" to those "be's" who know where I'm comin' from. 8)

Glad you guys are on my side. GIs #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damage4Hire

[b][b]A Special Forces operator, a SEAL, a Para-Rescue trooper and a Marine were all sitting around a camp fire ...

(Damage raises a beer) It's STILL the home of the brave. God speed, my bretheren. [/b]

---

Heeheehee! :laughing6: This is another goody that has been passed around the Spec Op community for many years. Depending on who's telling the joke, will determine who is stirring the fire at the end, and a Force Recon Marine is generally used with the other elite operators. Now days a MARSOC Marine is also used. :partyman:

Then there's the how many Marines (insert whatever unit) does it take to whip a Green Beret. Six (insert whatever number). Five to shake him out of the tree and one to get the job done. :mrgreen:

Then there's the how many Green Beret's does it take to whip a Marine. Six. Five to pull him off of his buddy's cock and one to get the job done. :lol: