I'm wondering, are Navy Seals part of the Navy or are they like a separate "mini" branch? And if they are part of the Navy, why do people mock the Navy saying there weak compared to Marines or Army if some people in the Navy are seals? Sorry for my stupid question but i'm very very confused...
@nicevid1234 Seals are a spec ops for the Navy. just like Rangers nd green berets and night stalkers are spec ops of the army and force recon is spec ops for the Marines. that whole which branch is stronger is just stupid shit civilians say. the only branch off the Navy is the Marines. but in combat all branches are equal. just choosing a branch is to your own personal choosing. and the only stupid question is the ones not asked. hoep this helped you-Hooah PVT2 Lapiana 12R NYARNG
@ladiezman914 Thanks that helped me a lot. I myself am going to join the Marine Corps in a few years but I sincerely appreciate what you and all military members do for us. God Bless and take care.
@nnnnnate but muskets were smooth bore and the point is that it's just chance whether or not the shot hits its mark. I know more about this than you so don't fucking patronise me, douche bag.
@19maurice42 so then you'd know that when you load the musket with several 'balls' it's basically a shotgun 'buckshot', which can be more accurate than a single smooth barrel 'ball' douche box. lighten up.
@FL0s0Fr3sh23 One of the original Marine slogan was Improvise, adapt and overcome. It has beed "adapted" to Marine Recon's Swift silent and deadly motto. But that is the original Marine's saying as well as many others.
@thingman100 yep Marines are known all over the world to be the toughest not to mention oldest fight force still in action and tend to have the longest basic training. Royal Marines basic training is 30 something weeks.
i asked my JROTC chief if there was a marine jrotc and he said yes, he said the marines were a branch of the navy and the navy was a branch of the military.......is he right?
@XB0XFR34K USMC is a branch of the navy he is 100% correct navy is military and marines are navy (sort of) and there is a Marine JROTC it's not offered in my school Though :(
@tripplenipple100 thats why every marine is a rifleman. Not everyone sits behind a desk, and if they do sit behind a dest then that is one motivated desk jockey
@tripplenipple100 Yes yes and when you're out smoking a cigarette in Iraq and some insurgent comes at you with a weapon guess you'll just play dead, huh? Or rather say we where in a all out war with another country and they invaded one of our bases imagine every single Marine cook grabbing a M16 and blowing their asses sky high. Every Marine is a Rifleman I'd like to think there's a good reason for that.
It's funny watchin the arguements here, it shows 2 different points of view.
The guys saying one branch is better than another are usually refering to SEAL A fighting Marine B in one on one combat (or 1000 vs 1000), which is absurd.
The guys saying they're incomparible are looking at the big picture i.e. 2000 SEALs vs250000 USMC (numbers probably not right but you get the idea) the Marines are going to win with sheer numbers, but the SEALs are more covert for a stealthy mission (+and -).
@aloneisthekey86 That sounds like solid logic to me! I guess the point is that it doesn't matter, because those two forces will never be opposing each other.
Damn guys we're all on the same team now come on. Just because we're everyones cargo doesn't make Marines any worse than any branch and just we're all trained as riflemen deosn't make us better either. Nor does the fact that our basic training last for 13 weeks, and the Army's is only 9-12 weeks pending on reserve training or not, make Marines better either. Also the fact that we have MCT(Marine Combat Training) in addition to basic, doesn't make us better either. We all work together.
@gonner709 what are you smoking? better than the marines? the only unit that comes close in the whole military is the SEALs and the Force Recon has them running for their money.
@gonner709 I don't think that qualifies as 'military'. Not to mention that anybody who knows anything about the CIA knows that it is common for them to use special forces.
@price48 if u think the only things in the military that are better than marines are SEALs... then ur an idiot. but then again you cant compare them because first off, the USMC is almost a branch of 250,000. i think theres less than 2,000 SEALs. now generally speaking, USMC has one of the best infantry in the world if not the best. but compared to certain Secial Operations units, not even close. for example. USMC infantry > Army Ifantry. but USMC infantry < Green berets. kinda get it?
@FastEddie718 Well considering the initial comparison was the Force Recon, then yes what I said fits. Perhaps I was ambiguous: As far as branches are concerned, USMC is the best. Special Ops on the other hand, Recon & SEALs are tied. Then if you were to add how the Special Ops measures with the main branch then you have another comparison: SEALs make the Navy as a whole rank higher than the Army. Let me know if I confuse you.
@price48 well first off, no branch is better than another. they all have different missions. your not going to call the air force to go fight a sea battle are u? and their training reflects this. your not going to put an airmen through a boot camp like USMC when hes probably never going to see combat and going to be working with computers most of the time. so u cant say one branch is better than another when each branch has their own specialties.
@price48 and also im not sure how u can say SEALs make the Navy as a whole rank higher than the Army. again... no one branch is better than the other. but if u want to get into that, Army has Rangers, Special Forces, Delta Force. Navy has SEALs. thats it. unless u want to include SWCC. but anywho the only thing that is comparable to Delta Force is Devgru. and dont get me wrong, im not trying to put down one unit or branch and praise another. as i said before, each unit/branch has their specialty
@FastEddie718 Except you forget that the USMC has their own aviation program (as does the navy) and their training is still superior to the USAF. As for the Rangers, Special Forces/Delta I know of a few SEALs who could take on any Ranger, SF/D-boy any time anywhere (even after parasailing at least three miles and then swimming five).
@price48 so are u saying that one branch is superior to another? Because if you are, then ur saying that the superior branch can operate by itself and thus has no need for all other inferior branches. your ignorant as you are stupid. you obviously have only common "knowledge" of the military and its units and operations. when you state that one branch is superior to another and that one unit could take on another "any time anywhere" proves you have no intelligent view of the military.
@FastEddie718 It took you this long to figure out what I was getting at? And yes, that is what I'm saying. If you look at what the Marines can do (logistics, units, etc.) then you would know that they can operate by themselves with little to no help from other services. And if other services are needed enlighten me as to what the Army does that the USMC can't do. p.s. your uncanny way of attacking my intelligence could lead one to suspect you have no abilty in forming intelligent arguments.
Couple guys got a bunch of others drunk and got them to enlist in the first Marine Regiment created by the Department of the Navy. The tradition continues, lol....
Actually the oldest Marine unit is the Spanish Marines, it's only that the word "marine" i not native in many languages, so they call them "naval infantry"
not sure if anyone has noticed it yet (and i can't be bothered scanning the posts), but your war of independence and the beginnings of the marine corps was in 1775 not 1875,
@MrNoahDeer I know. The Marine Corps was made in a bar by 2 men in 1775, But the congress made the Marine Corps part of the armed forces on 1875. There's some history you can share around.
@MrNoahDeer yes and no. those were the continental marines, not the U.S. marine corps , so "the marines" could have been born on either date, it just depends if you consider the continental forces to be the US forces they represent or if you consider them to be the different "continental" forces they were actually fighting as. the US since it wasn't recognized as an Independent country could not therefore have its own fighting force because it didn't officially exist, hence the name continental
@MrNoahDeer Well it depends on how you look at it. Continental Marines that were formed in 1775 were disbanded after the war. What people known as the United States Marine Corps were formed after that.
The USMC says that Nov 10 1775 was the birthday of the Marines because of Continental Marines were the "fathers" of the branch.
@MrNoahDeer the 18th century was from 1700-1800...i find it funny that you don't seem to know this :). for example we're in the 21st century at the moment though it's still only 2010 o.O
@Omgausername6 indeed, thankyou for that lesson but I just want to point out I was referring to the description. It says 1875 not 1775... for the record I am aware that we are in the 21st century, however much I long for a return of the 20th, particularly the 70s.
Veteran's get fat after starvation, because you're body stores the fat if you starve then eat. Basically you're body goes into survival mode for the rest of you're life.
So much blue on blue? Lol in the 9 years we have been at war their have been a total of 6 incidents of US on British friendly fire. Less than 1 a year. And 5 out of 6 of them were from airstrikes. So so much blue on blue?
ok mixed opinion...from nz point of veiw.weve had more than 3 friendly fire kills from you guys in training alone....most notably an sas sargent first class. the battlefeild? unknown to a large extent...in veitnam you dosed a whole battalion camp and surrounding patrol area in agent orange....which had far reaching implications including birth defects. Not cool. but i will agree air support is still very risky in intensive c.a.s and you will still likly get blue on blue.
its just a price to pay for air cover. I read a great journal of a usmc cobra pilot in operation iraqi freedom. But that is the result of the c.a.s system the marines adopt. Preffering direct fire control from ground to air instead of an airforce intermediatry. The result means faster response time to units on the turf but less cordinated fire control. A marine cas pilot has a very high and intensive workload compared to army/navy/airforce pilot. Allways 24/7 result...mistakes
@Dramen20 the rivalry makes everyone strive to be better. its a good thing. we all know we are on the same team but i will never ever not make fun of someone in the army when i see them walking in the mall with the BDU's on. tools. but on the battlefield where it counts i have their backs as much as they have mine.
Actually intelligence is required a lot too in the Marine Corps they don't just train you to become extremely physically strong but they will also push you mentally a lot
When a fire starts in your living room, do you stand around and argue about who started the fire? And let it spread through your neighborhood? Or do you put the fire out as quickly as possible and THEN argue who it was that started it?
People who argue that we should pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan don't see this apparently....
And maybe....just maybe if people would grow a back bone and do what needs to be done...we wouldn't still be fighting over there.
Also about the people who think we should pull out are usually the people who constantly bash Bush and whatnot about us being over there in the first place.
That is very well said. Only that the way it was begun by bush was foolish in the way he addressed what he was going to do by actually telling the enemy. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe in the war on terror, I just wish that politicians would stop sticking their noses in it and that lazy fat office junky officers would get off of their rockers and stop bragging their useless ego and actually do something for a change. God bless the good officers and politicians that give a crap though.
I have worked with many militaries of our allies.... I credit each of them for having the resolve to serve while being so underfunded. What pisses me off is when govt's intentionally accept US money every year, send trivial numbers to help, pull out early and leave the fighting and bill to the US... then talk shit about the US. Britain and now Poland are the only real "allies" I would consider the US truly has. I am all for the US adopting the old attitude of not bothering. Let them fight it out
I know... when will people open their eyes to Obama? What a worthless leader. I would give anything to have a Reagan back in office. The only way to guarantee peace, is to be prepared for war.
He was an exceptional president (Reagan).And just a tough SOB. Slapping sanctions and boycotts on rouge countries wont do a damn thing. If he was alive and still our president Iran would be a crater,
ummmmm This video is wrong it says the revolutionary war started in 1875 which 100 freakin years off. How the heck does the military channel make a mistake like that?
well yes we are helping you guys with the war, but i personaly and many others are sick of helping to clean up america's ''police work'' on the world. And i also dont understand how you can think that the US has a larger army then the entire EU combined (after all this how it is today). We have the same technology sinds we are allies, we buy from the US and sell to the US, if we would had a shity army china and russia would have rolled in a longtime ago. Our country's have been forced in war.
The United States spends more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined.
The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending.
The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined representing 72 percent of the worlds total
yeah and now add the National debt to the list which is impossible to pay back and the o so great healthcare system right now and all its other o so great things...... Dont know if you realise but china is alrdy funding the US with its money, they want to see it back sooner or later.
if your asking where im going to with this is that every country on the planet can have a powerfull army if they want to, the question is if they can support it. right now the US is in deep shit with its debt and its ganna have the same fate as the soviet union.
Please explain to me when the Brits or Nato have ever cleaned up the US's mess? If anyone has cleaned up messes it's the US cleaning up the Euro mess. Every major conflict in the past 150 years only occured because of Europe or it's Imperialistic greed... so please, enllighten us.
Gee thanks for cleaning it up when you guys have what 3 thousand there? HAHA Not to mention that your "superior" force is suffering FOUR TIMES our casualty rate. I'm surprised, with your long history of defeating third world countries and making them subjects.
9,100 actually and as for the casualties we are getting its down to IEd's not soldiering skill , but i think what you have just said there is extremely disrespectful to the British soldiers that are fighting YOUR countries corner , but maybe our casualties wouldnt be so high if we were where the US is right in Afghan , the fact is Helamand Province compared to the rest is far worse due to the poppy fields which the taliban need and protect , might i suggest you learn to respect soldiers 1st.
Oh sorry....apparently I struck a nerve. Suddenly it changes....your posts are all over Youtube about how inferior the US military is and how Britain has to keep saving us. I beg to differ on Britain having the toughest fighting... Kandahar and Helmand both are difficult areas, but especially Kandahar with the mountains and Pakistan a short hop away. If we want to end this we should just invade Pakistan and get rid of the whole mess.
Agree'd but both you and i know that will not happen , not with Obama in power and Gordon Brown in power in the UK , neither of these men have a fucking back bone , at least Blair and Bush had the balls and trust in there conviction to go ahead with what they felt they needed to do.
Too fucking right man , i loved Bush although i am British , i loved Blair , they were both essentially the same person just spoke differently if you get my drift , and they didnt fuck around , i just dont truly understand why the fuck why are in the EU , we have far more in common with the US and Canada.
Money mate , Britiain is financially broke , we borrow £200 Billion per year just to keep our heads above water , staying with the EU as kind of like an umbrella where if we go bankrupt the EU can bail us out , where as if we wasnt in it we would be fucked , although in principle i agree with the EU on just free trade everything else about it is just pure wrong including the so called proposed EU Army.
eu army? thats the first iv heard of that im trying to join the british army at the mo if they start calling it the eu army and i start getting bossed around by a french man im doin a runner :(
For the record, I have had many good friends from Britain and Canada both. Bickering between the forces is just an everyday thing....and I think it is healthy overall to have competition and pride. I honestly have no issues with most of the US allies, but I am damned tired of hearing how horrible the US is when we are the ones that ante up everytime something goes bad.
Maybe you would like to take into account of the size of the British Army compared to the US , and if you do then you'll realise that 9,100 British troops is a big deployment consider our forces are not designed for massive wars much like the US but when David Camerron gets into power next year he is going to increase troop numbers but maybe you want to point your argument at countries like France and Germany that are doing NOTHING worth while out there and are in quiet province's
I replied to your statement without the knowledge of your nationality. I absolutely agree with you, that the proper recipients of my words are France, Germany, Spain, and etc....
the U.K has always been the better of western Europe.
But the fact remains, that Afghanistan isn't solely america's problem. If U.N. members truely care about improving lives around the globe then they would step up to the plate and play a role in Afghanistan, if they don't why should we?
Exactly but i think your comment regarding the UK was out of context , if you imagine a country with an army of just over 100,000 , with 58 ,000 infantry then you will realise that 9,100 is a high proportion of overall numbers , but in regards to France etc i believe that should provide a more active role as they will reap the same benefits as the countries that gave more sacrifices
I whole heartedly agree man... I question our allince with France and Germany constantly. They do nothing to help in any situation and many times are working subversely with those we are fighting. I think the alliance is more of an uneasy smile to keep WWII from happening again. It amazes me that countries like Denmark or Poland help so much... especially in contrast to Germany who owes not being run over by mother Russia to Nato.
Alexn1067, while I understand what you mean with your frustration, let's remember that if we lose our world (Which yes, our beloved USA is a part of) then we will inevitably die. Yes, our country needs aid in its current conflicts, but let us imagine this: One guy is about to shoot another guy in the head: You try to hold the would-be shooter back, but nobody helps you. Do you let him shoot the other guy?
you are painting a picture that isn't representative of the topic.
the true painting would be where we run the risk of getting shot ourselves while everyone else stands back in judgment saying things like "well maybe if you didn't get involved he wouldn't have discharged his weapon" or something to that effect.
my whole point is, that I am sick of america sticking its neck out when others aren't even going to meet us halfway. I propose that we act like europe and do nothing.
You're right. We were a lot better off back before the World Wars when we were practicing Isolationism instead of just racking up, then ignoring, reasons to.
Why not just make Jagers for the Marines back then?
Y'know, german hunting rifle, more accurate than a musket.
Sorry if my info's off.
baron8107 2 months ago
I'm wondering, are Navy Seals part of the Navy or are they like a separate "mini" branch? And if they are part of the Navy, why do people mock the Navy saying there weak compared to Marines or Army if some people in the Navy are seals? Sorry for my stupid question but i'm very very confused...
nicevid1234 2 months ago
@nicevid1234 Seals are a spec ops for the Navy. just like Rangers nd green berets and night stalkers are spec ops of the army and force recon is spec ops for the Marines. that whole which branch is stronger is just stupid shit civilians say. the only branch off the Navy is the Marines. but in combat all branches are equal. just choosing a branch is to your own personal choosing. and the only stupid question is the ones not asked. hoep this helped you-Hooah PVT2 Lapiana 12R NYARNG
ladiezman914 1 month ago
@ladiezman914 Thanks that helped me a lot. I myself am going to join the Marine Corps in a few years but I sincerely appreciate what you and all military members do for us. God Bless and take care.
nicevid1234 1 month ago
@nicevid1234 good luck and Semper-Fi
ladiezman914 1 month ago
Has anyone else noticed the typeo in the date in the info, should be 1775 not 1875
bergertown1 2 months ago
I like the way that all of the buckshot hits the target as thought it makes the musket an accurate weapon all of a sudden.
19maurice42 8 months ago 3
@19maurice42 wow, are you really that smart? yes, if it hits a target it's accurate
nnnnnate 7 months ago
@nnnnnate but muskets were smooth bore and the point is that it's just chance whether or not the shot hits its mark. I know more about this than you so don't fucking patronise me, douche bag.
19maurice42 7 months ago
@19maurice42 so then you'd know that when you load the musket with several 'balls' it's basically a shotgun 'buckshot', which can be more accurate than a single smooth barrel 'ball' douche box. lighten up.
nnnnnate 7 months ago
adapt, achieve, and overcome.
FL0s0Fr3sh23 11 months ago
@FL0s0Fr3sh23 One of the original Marine slogan was Improvise, adapt and overcome. It has beed "adapted" to Marine Recon's Swift silent and deadly motto. But that is the original Marine's saying as well as many others.
shoktroop 10 months ago
adopt and overcome right?
RODINAMO 11 months ago
1875! this is an outrage!
doodman123451 11 months ago
sub-naval ingagements hahaha.
dani3lru1z 1 year ago
military channel thinks lady libery's got balls!
I wants a fuckings shotguns....bullets things but an automatic ones
notguano 1 year ago
Actually, the marines were 'made' in Holland by Michiel de Ruyter and Johan de Wit.
That was back in the late 1660's, i think 1665.
In1660 Holland was in war with England and so the Dutch marines were made!
thingman100 1 year ago
@thingman100 yep Marines are known all over the world to be the toughest not to mention oldest fight force still in action and tend to have the longest basic training. Royal Marines basic training is 30 something weeks.
Danzig514 1 year ago
@Danzig514
Well, my brother want's to join the marines and he will be away for 33 weeks
thingman100 1 year ago
@thingman100 Actually the the Royal Marines were founded on Oct 28, 1664. Before the Dutch.
DANIAC262 1 year ago
@DANIAC262
well, a darn year earlier...
The Dutch marines: 5 December 1665
thingman100 1 year ago
They are two seperate branches, the Marine Corps is just a sub-division of the navy.
loganhalley 1 year ago
@loganhalley It's a division of the Department of Navy, and so is the "Navy." The USMC isn't the "Navy" but part of the DN.
Zerofire77 1 year ago
@Zerofire77 Yeah they are a department of the navy, the mens department
OCM117 1 year ago 20
@Zerofire77 lol that's what I said.
loganhalley 1 year ago
i asked my JROTC chief if there was a marine jrotc and he said yes, he said the marines were a branch of the navy and the navy was a branch of the military.......is he right?
XB0XFR34K 1 year ago
@XB0XFR34K USMC is a branch of the navy he is 100% correct navy is military and marines are navy (sort of) and there is a Marine JROTC it's not offered in my school Though :(
sirdilly2091 1 year ago
@XB0XFR34K there 2 different branches
alankills 1 year ago
@alankills so you're calling my retired chief a liar?
XB0XFR34K 1 year ago
@XB0XFR34K well im not callin him over for dinner. so yup
alankills 1 year ago
@tripplenipple100 thats why every marine is a rifleman. Not everyone sits behind a desk, and if they do sit behind a dest then that is one motivated desk jockey
whitepride603 1 year ago
MilitaryChannel's youtube account is somewhat flawed lol. Whoever's in charge has some typing issues.
Krisg9994 1 year ago
@tripplenipple100 Yes yes and when you're out smoking a cigarette in Iraq and some insurgent comes at you with a weapon guess you'll just play dead, huh? Or rather say we where in a all out war with another country and they invaded one of our bases imagine every single Marine cook grabbing a M16 and blowing their asses sky high. Every Marine is a Rifleman I'd like to think there's a good reason for that.
QQMoreClown 1 year ago
It's funny watchin the arguements here, it shows 2 different points of view.
The guys saying one branch is better than another are usually refering to SEAL A fighting Marine B in one on one combat (or 1000 vs 1000), which is absurd.
The guys saying they're incomparible are looking at the big picture i.e. 2000 SEALs vs250000 USMC (numbers probably not right but you get the idea) the Marines are going to win with sheer numbers, but the SEALs are more covert for a stealthy mission (+and -).
ImWatchinTheTube 1 year ago
@ImWatchinTheTube most navy seals are marines, the marines is part of the navy. so regardless their still marines. semper fidelis!!! whoorahh
aloneisthekey86 1 year ago
@aloneisthekey86 That sounds like solid logic to me! I guess the point is that it doesn't matter, because those two forces will never be opposing each other.
ImWatchinTheTube 1 year ago
Damn guys we're all on the same team now come on. Just because we're everyones cargo doesn't make Marines any worse than any branch and just we're all trained as riflemen deosn't make us better either. Nor does the fact that our basic training last for 13 weeks, and the Army's is only 9-12 weeks pending on reserve training or not, make Marines better either. Also the fact that we have MCT(Marine Combat Training) in addition to basic, doesn't make us better either. We all work together.
loganhalley 1 year ago 3
@ForceRecon29
at what? there's better units with in your own army....
gonner709 1 year ago
@gonner709 what are you smoking? better than the marines? the only unit that comes close in the whole military is the SEALs and the Force Recon has them running for their money.
price48 1 year ago
@price48
your wrong. the fucking CIA has better troops.
gonner709 1 year ago
@gonner709 I don't think that qualifies as 'military'. Not to mention that anybody who knows anything about the CIA knows that it is common for them to use special forces.
price48 1 year ago
@price48 if u think the only things in the military that are better than marines are SEALs... then ur an idiot. but then again you cant compare them because first off, the USMC is almost a branch of 250,000. i think theres less than 2,000 SEALs. now generally speaking, USMC has one of the best infantry in the world if not the best. but compared to certain Secial Operations units, not even close. for example. USMC infantry > Army Ifantry. but USMC infantry < Green berets. kinda get it?
FastEddie718 1 year ago
@FastEddie718 Well considering the initial comparison was the Force Recon, then yes what I said fits. Perhaps I was ambiguous: As far as branches are concerned, USMC is the best. Special Ops on the other hand, Recon & SEALs are tied. Then if you were to add how the Special Ops measures with the main branch then you have another comparison: SEALs make the Navy as a whole rank higher than the Army. Let me know if I confuse you.
price48 1 year ago
@price48 well first off, no branch is better than another. they all have different missions. your not going to call the air force to go fight a sea battle are u? and their training reflects this. your not going to put an airmen through a boot camp like USMC when hes probably never going to see combat and going to be working with computers most of the time. so u cant say one branch is better than another when each branch has their own specialties.
FastEddie718 1 year ago
@price48 and also im not sure how u can say SEALs make the Navy as a whole rank higher than the Army. again... no one branch is better than the other. but if u want to get into that, Army has Rangers, Special Forces, Delta Force. Navy has SEALs. thats it. unless u want to include SWCC. but anywho the only thing that is comparable to Delta Force is Devgru. and dont get me wrong, im not trying to put down one unit or branch and praise another. as i said before, each unit/branch has their specialty
FastEddie718 1 year ago
@FastEddie718 Except you forget that the USMC has their own aviation program (as does the navy) and their training is still superior to the USAF. As for the Rangers, Special Forces/Delta I know of a few SEALs who could take on any Ranger, SF/D-boy any time anywhere (even after parasailing at least three miles and then swimming five).
price48 1 year ago
@price48 so are u saying that one branch is superior to another? Because if you are, then ur saying that the superior branch can operate by itself and thus has no need for all other inferior branches. your ignorant as you are stupid. you obviously have only common "knowledge" of the military and its units and operations. when you state that one branch is superior to another and that one unit could take on another "any time anywhere" proves you have no intelligent view of the military.
FastEddie718 1 year ago
@FastEddie718 It took you this long to figure out what I was getting at? And yes, that is what I'm saying. If you look at what the Marines can do (logistics, units, etc.) then you would know that they can operate by themselves with little to no help from other services. And if other services are needed enlighten me as to what the Army does that the USMC can't do. p.s. your uncanny way of attacking my intelligence could lead one to suspect you have no abilty in forming intelligent arguments.
price48 1 year ago
Alright, once and for all.
November 10, 1775 - Tun Tavern Philadelphia, PA.
Couple guys got a bunch of others drunk and got them to enlist in the first Marine Regiment created by the Department of the Navy. The tradition continues, lol....
TheMorgue13 1 year ago
scatter balls xD
kalemongoolmuts 1 year ago
lol it would scatter balls
i know im immature teehee
airconaaron 1 year ago
@ForceRecon29 That's right, I can tell that the media has been feeding you alot.
Jp4baseball 1 year ago
@Jp4baseball I agree strongly with u
NoTukey 1 year ago
@Jp4baseball Its people like him that make me ashamed to be an American....
ResidentEvilacPiano 1 year ago
@ResidentEvilacPiano you sir, make me ashamed to be an american, simply for your remark.
price48 1 year ago
don't you mean 1775. Marine Corps. Birthday is November 10, 1775
eddy2125 1 year ago 13
SEMPER FI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEFUKGMARINE 1 year ago 3
No mention of how successful they where though. Basically they got massacred by the British Marines!
tankcommander94 1 year ago
the us navy was puny in 1776, they werent even able to put a dent in the british blockade did a pretty good job have to respect their bravery.
arsenalforever31 1 year ago
people think that the marines are native to the US, but they're actually from Britain
Eartola44 1 year ago
@Eartola44
Actually the oldest Marine unit is the Spanish Marines, it's only that the word "marine" i not native in many languages, so they call them "naval infantry"
Banderas23mfr 1 year ago
@Eartola44 kinda common sense, only people that are native to the US are native americans but that goes without saying. we're all immigrants.
bombin101 1 year ago
"way back in 1775 my marine corps came alive"
-Us Marine.
xRa01 1 year ago 2
where are parts 4 or 5?
joecoolbackinschool 2 years ago 12
November 10, 1775 happy bday Marines
potato1001 2 years ago 113
november 10th 1775
cuzojohn 2 years ago 3
Where's part 4?
whitesox889 2 years ago 3
not sure if anyone has noticed it yet (and i can't be bothered scanning the posts), but your war of independence and the beginnings of the marine corps was in 1775 not 1875,
MrNoahDeer 2 years ago 67
@MrNoahDeer You're correct... the info description for the video is wrong.
Bigp426 2 years ago
Yeah, i noticed too. I just figured it was too trivial to bring up.
TheUSMC2017 2 years ago
oh snap!
MrNoahDeer 2 years ago
@MrNoahDeer I know. The Marine Corps was made in a bar by 2 men in 1775, But the congress made the Marine Corps part of the armed forces on 1875. There's some history you can share around.
acegoldman 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer yes and no. those were the continental marines, not the U.S. marine corps , so "the marines" could have been born on either date, it just depends if you consider the continental forces to be the US forces they represent or if you consider them to be the different "continental" forces they were actually fighting as. the US since it wasn't recognized as an Independent country could not therefore have its own fighting force because it didn't officially exist, hence the name continental
CaptainKzer 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer Not something we can change, I'm sure the military channel would be embarrassed if they'd realized that.
daishi2442 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer Well it depends on how you look at it. Continental Marines that were formed in 1775 were disbanded after the war. What people known as the United States Marine Corps were formed after that.
The USMC says that Nov 10 1775 was the birthday of the Marines because of Continental Marines were the "fathers" of the branch.
N4K3DN1NJ4 1 year ago
@N4K3DN1NJ4 Disbanded in 1783 and resurrected in 1798.
DANIAC262 1 year ago
@DANIAC262 Ah I see. Technically Im right, but not in that context. Guess it's just a typo.
N4K3DN1NJ4 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer the 18th century was from 1700-1800...i find it funny that you don't seem to know this :). for example we're in the 21st century at the moment though it's still only 2010 o.O
Omgausername6 1 year ago
@Omgausername6 indeed, thankyou for that lesson but I just want to point out I was referring to the description. It says 1875 not 1775... for the record I am aware that we are in the 21st century, however much I long for a return of the 20th, particularly the 70s.
MrNoahDeer 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer yea that is a pretty huge mistake for the Military Channel
honchoryanc 1 year ago
@MrNoahDeer That's exactly what I noticed first as well.
gentry6451 1 year ago
Has anyone ever noticed how heaps of gun enthusiasts are really fat?
AusQuitzau 2 years ago 5
Veteran's get fat after starvation, because you're body stores the fat if you starve then eat. Basically you're body goes into survival mode for the rest of you're life.
LeGoMaNiAMaN 2 years ago
SEMPER FI UNTIL I DIE!!!
MIAVice91 2 years ago 4
@kurupt1387 troll
YaikonMetal 2 years ago 3
its USMC or die like the rest bitch!
tdabamm12 2 years ago 2
USMC
famouzboi13 2 years ago 2
marines kick ass, navy is just like a taxi driver
sandythebear 2 years ago 2
So why are they saving your asses with their CAP missions :P.
Plawranc 2 years ago
tell that to the Navy SEALs....
iseeuat100yds 2 years ago 3
dude there shouldn't be any conflict between any of the US branches. make your comments about someone else. like the royal marines.
Dramen20 2 years ago 2
thats true, but dude its just like a sibling friendly rivalry its not like we intensely hate each other
sandythebear 2 years ago
ohh i am aware of the rivalry. but when the jerks over the lake call us out we need to kick their ass
Dramen20 2 years ago
if thats the american mindset, no wonder theres so much blue on blue
DJGasmask 2 years ago 2
So much blue on blue? Lol in the 9 years we have been at war their have been a total of 6 incidents of US on British friendly fire. Less than 1 a year. And 5 out of 6 of them were from airstrikes. So so much blue on blue?
Crizzle789 2 years ago
its never our boys on you though is it??
DJGasmask 2 years ago 2
Theres been 2 British on US friendly fire incidents. And I can guarantee that number would be higher if you provided most of the air support.
Crizzle789 2 years ago
ok mixed opinion...from nz point of veiw.weve had more than 3 friendly fire kills from you guys in training alone....most notably an sas sargent first class. the battlefeild? unknown to a large extent...in veitnam you dosed a whole battalion camp and surrounding patrol area in agent orange....which had far reaching implications including birth defects. Not cool. but i will agree air support is still very risky in intensive c.a.s and you will still likly get blue on blue.
adznz11 2 years ago
its just a price to pay for air cover. I read a great journal of a usmc cobra pilot in operation iraqi freedom. But that is the result of the c.a.s system the marines adopt. Preffering direct fire control from ground to air instead of an airforce intermediatry. The result means faster response time to units on the turf but less cordinated fire control. A marine cas pilot has a very high and intensive workload compared to army/navy/airforce pilot. Allways 24/7 result...mistakes
adznz11 2 years ago
@Dramen20 the rivalry makes everyone strive to be better. its a good thing. we all know we are on the same team but i will never ever not make fun of someone in the army when i see them walking in the mall with the BDU's on. tools. but on the battlefield where it counts i have their backs as much as they have mine.
usmcboyer 2 years ago 2
oooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh
sandythebear 2 years ago
@Navysealinthemaking navy sucks learn it
sandythebear 2 years ago
UNCLE SAMS MISGUIDED CHILDREN
5K34M420 2 years ago 7
MARINE:
Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential
Sir!
raybans13 2 years ago 3
Actually intelligence is required a lot too in the Marine Corps they don't just train you to become extremely physically strong but they will also push you mentally a lot
RedxCode 2 years ago 4
I'm curious about what people think.
When a fire starts in your living room, do you stand around and argue about who started the fire? And let it spread through your neighborhood? Or do you put the fire out as quickly as possible and THEN argue who it was that started it?
People who argue that we should pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan don't see this apparently....
And maybe....just maybe if people would grow a back bone and do what needs to be done...we wouldn't still be fighting over there.
vidfreak099 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Also about the people who think we should pull out are usually the people who constantly bash Bush and whatnot about us being over there in the first place.
vidfreak099 2 years ago
That is very well said. Only that the way it was begun by bush was foolish in the way he addressed what he was going to do by actually telling the enemy. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe in the war on terror, I just wish that politicians would stop sticking their noses in it and that lazy fat office junky officers would get off of their rockers and stop bragging their useless ego and actually do something for a change. God bless the good officers and politicians that give a crap though.
jamesdragonforce 2 years ago 2
USMC
uncle sams mistreated children.
and the marines were created in 1775 not 1885
cj7755 2 years ago
yes
Ac3Killer11 2 years ago
how the fuck did everyone start talking about countries helping with war this was about how marines use their weapons damn u people have issues
drakebob17 2 years ago 3
I have worked with many militaries of our allies.... I credit each of them for having the resolve to serve while being so underfunded. What pisses me off is when govt's intentionally accept US money every year, send trivial numbers to help, pull out early and leave the fighting and bill to the US... then talk shit about the US. Britain and now Poland are the only real "allies" I would consider the US truly has. I am all for the US adopting the old attitude of not bothering. Let them fight it out
HatrXx78 2 years ago 5
now poland is pissed at us because we stopped the missal shield from being built in europe.
RichieLT 2 years ago
I know... when will people open their eyes to Obama? What a worthless leader. I would give anything to have a Reagan back in office. The only way to guarantee peace, is to be prepared for war.
HatrXx78 2 years ago 4
He was an exceptional president (Reagan).And just a tough SOB. Slapping sanctions and boycotts on rouge countries wont do a damn thing. If he was alive and still our president Iran would be a crater,
Semper FI maggots
RichieLT 2 years ago 2
ummmmm This video is wrong it says the revolutionary war started in 1875 which 100 freakin years off. How the heck does the military channel make a mistake like that?
mikesmania 2 years ago
1775 not 1875 change the description.
Zwerchhau 2 years ago
1875 was a typo.
Commiessux 2 years ago 13
1775 isn't it?
GovVance 2 years ago
yup it was 1775.
Commiessux 2 years ago
@Commiessux
Huuuugggeeee typo.
SpaceAgeDiaper 1 year ago
cough cough its TUN Tavern, and no its not still there. theres only a sign in the wall saying thats where it used to be. semper fidels 10NOV1775
leperkon00 2 years ago
1875, WTF? Didn't Tunns Tavern burn down by then?
gnigged68 2 years ago
that is where the Marines were started.
TheMasterMarine 2 years ago
Yeah, I know. Nov 10th 1775 @ Tunns Tavern. But the comment box says "1875." I can't for the life of me remember when the Tavern burned down though.
gnigged68 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tavern is still standing. But its a shithole.
colerhea16 2 years ago
Haha, I saw that too. Must be a typo or a dumb mistake. We all know 1775 is more like it...
palerider1775 2 years ago
OORAH!
SWAT201919 2 years ago 3
Couldint have said it better myself
coulditbekronau 2 years ago
yeh you could've, just stretch the word and add more exclamation points XD
SWAT201919 2 years ago
OOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! happy?
TheMasterMarine 2 years ago
XD yeh bro oorah!!!
SWAT201919 2 years ago 3
marines were official in 1775, i forgot XD
SWAT201919 2 years ago
Nov. 10, 1775
Bejzbol1993 2 years ago 2
Yeh Nov. 10, thx for the reminder :P
SWAT201919 2 years ago
umm technically it wasn't the unitid kingdom. it was Great Briton. and who lives in america that dosent know that.
Tcreature358 2 years ago
Who pulled out of iraq first......
eathis12 2 years ago 4
the brits are still with us in iraq/afghan
JukemDrawles89 2 years ago
And so are the netherlands and alote of other Nato countries, fixing america's crap left behind one's again........
sarg1988 2 years ago
yeah but sadly you guys dont really have many troops
JukemDrawles89 2 years ago
helping us in the war that is
JukemDrawles89 2 years ago
well yes we are helping you guys with the war, but i personaly and many others are sick of helping to clean up america's ''police work'' on the world. And i also dont understand how you can think that the US has a larger army then the entire EU combined (after all this how it is today). We have the same technology sinds we are allies, we buy from the US and sell to the US, if we would had a shity army china and russia would have rolled in a longtime ago. Our country's have been forced in war.
sarg1988 2 years ago
The United States spends more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined.
The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending.
The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined representing 72 percent of the worlds total
JukemDrawles89 2 years ago
yeah and now add the National debt to the list which is impossible to pay back and the o so great healthcare system right now and all its other o so great things...... Dont know if you realise but china is alrdy funding the US with its money, they want to see it back sooner or later.
sarg1988 2 years ago
if your asking where im going to with this is that every country on the planet can have a powerfull army if they want to, the question is if they can support it. right now the US is in deep shit with its debt and its ganna have the same fate as the soviet union.
sarg1988 2 years ago
@JukemDrawles89 And yet it still only counts for 4-6% of our GDP.
price48 1 year ago
Wow china actually cares about us?
JukemDrawles89 2 years ago
Please explain to me when the Brits or Nato have ever cleaned up the US's mess? If anyone has cleaned up messes it's the US cleaning up the Euro mess. Every major conflict in the past 150 years only occured because of Europe or it's Imperialistic greed... so please, enllighten us.
HatrXx78 2 years ago 2
One word............... Afghanistan , out there cleaning your mess up.
bubbles867 2 years ago
Gee thanks for cleaning it up when you guys have what 3 thousand there? HAHA Not to mention that your "superior" force is suffering FOUR TIMES our casualty rate. I'm surprised, with your long history of defeating third world countries and making them subjects.
HatrXx78 2 years ago
9,100 actually and as for the casualties we are getting its down to IEd's not soldiering skill , but i think what you have just said there is extremely disrespectful to the British soldiers that are fighting YOUR countries corner , but maybe our casualties wouldnt be so high if we were where the US is right in Afghan , the fact is Helamand Province compared to the rest is far worse due to the poppy fields which the taliban need and protect , might i suggest you learn to respect soldiers 1st.
bubbles867 2 years ago
Oh sorry....apparently I struck a nerve. Suddenly it changes....your posts are all over Youtube about how inferior the US military is and how Britain has to keep saving us. I beg to differ on Britain having the toughest fighting... Kandahar and Helmand both are difficult areas, but especially Kandahar with the mountains and Pakistan a short hop away. If we want to end this we should just invade Pakistan and get rid of the whole mess.
HatrXx78 2 years ago 2
Agree'd but both you and i know that will not happen , not with Obama in power and Gordon Brown in power in the UK , neither of these men have a fucking back bone , at least Blair and Bush had the balls and trust in there conviction to go ahead with what they felt they needed to do.
bubbles867 2 years ago
Wow.....an intelligent comment on youtube that doesn't bash Bush? Awesome dude xD
I completely agree with you too. At least they could back up what they said they were gonna do.
vidfreak099 2 years ago
Too fucking right man , i loved Bush although i am British , i loved Blair , they were both essentially the same person just spoke differently if you get my drift , and they didnt fuck around , i just dont truly understand why the fuck why are in the EU , we have far more in common with the US and Canada.
bubbles867 2 years ago
i agree the eu is a load of rubbish wer not even connected to the european continent and we hate the french (oj) so why are we part of europe
youvegotmoobs 2 years ago
Money mate , Britiain is financially broke , we borrow £200 Billion per year just to keep our heads above water , staying with the EU as kind of like an umbrella where if we go bankrupt the EU can bail us out , where as if we wasnt in it we would be fucked , although in principle i agree with the EU on just free trade everything else about it is just pure wrong including the so called proposed EU Army.
bubbles867 2 years ago
eu army? thats the first iv heard of that im trying to join the british army at the mo if they start calling it the eu army and i start getting bossed around by a french man im doin a runner :(
youvegotmoobs 2 years ago
Well they are already here in some guises , and our 3 carriers are on call for them NOT NATO
bubbles867 2 years ago
For the record, I have had many good friends from Britain and Canada both. Bickering between the forces is just an everyday thing....and I think it is healthy overall to have competition and pride. I honestly have no issues with most of the US allies, but I am damned tired of hearing how horrible the US is when we are the ones that ante up everytime something goes bad.
HatrXx78 2 years ago
why don't you try to send more then a few regiments there and then you can talk a big game
besides Afghanistan is the responsibility of the free and the civilized which includes a hell of a lot more then just the U.S.
Frankly, I am sick of the U.S. having all the burden, if the world doesn't pitch in, then the world can go to hell for all I care.
Simple, the more skin in the game you have, the more of a right you have to speak.
Alexn1067 2 years ago
Maybe you would like to take into account of the size of the British Army compared to the US , and if you do then you'll realise that 9,100 British troops is a big deployment consider our forces are not designed for massive wars much like the US but when David Camerron gets into power next year he is going to increase troop numbers but maybe you want to point your argument at countries like France and Germany that are doing NOTHING worth while out there and are in quiet province's
bubbles867 2 years ago
I replied to your statement without the knowledge of your nationality. I absolutely agree with you, that the proper recipients of my words are France, Germany, Spain, and etc....
the U.K has always been the better of western Europe.
But the fact remains, that Afghanistan isn't solely america's problem. If U.N. members truely care about improving lives around the globe then they would step up to the plate and play a role in Afghanistan, if they don't why should we?
Alexn1067 2 years ago
Exactly but i think your comment regarding the UK was out of context , if you imagine a country with an army of just over 100,000 , with 58 ,000 infantry then you will realise that 9,100 is a high proportion of overall numbers , but in regards to France etc i believe that should provide a more active role as they will reap the same benefits as the countries that gave more sacrifices
bubbles867 2 years ago
I whole heartedly agree man... I question our allince with France and Germany constantly. They do nothing to help in any situation and many times are working subversely with those we are fighting. I think the alliance is more of an uneasy smile to keep WWII from happening again. It amazes me that countries like Denmark or Poland help so much... especially in contrast to Germany who owes not being run over by mother Russia to Nato.
HatrXx78 2 years ago
Alexn1067, while I understand what you mean with your frustration, let's remember that if we lose our world (Which yes, our beloved USA is a part of) then we will inevitably die. Yes, our country needs aid in its current conflicts, but let us imagine this: One guy is about to shoot another guy in the head: You try to hold the would-be shooter back, but nobody helps you. Do you let him shoot the other guy?
Musicisliberation 2 years ago
you are painting a picture that isn't representative of the topic.
the true painting would be where we run the risk of getting shot ourselves while everyone else stands back in judgment saying things like "well maybe if you didn't get involved he wouldn't have discharged his weapon" or something to that effect.
my whole point is, that I am sick of america sticking its neck out when others aren't even going to meet us halfway. I propose that we act like europe and do nothing.
Alexn1067 2 years ago 2
You're right. We were a lot better off back before the World Wars when we were practicing Isolationism instead of just racking up, then ignoring, reasons to.
Saeyabor 2 years ago