Talk:United States Armed Forces

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Aren't we missing something[edit]

Nothing on the Air Force?

And if you want to get technical, the Coast Guard is an armed service. It's under the Commerce Department (I think) during peacetime, but is under the Defense Department during a declared war. MDB (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


I know we're in the process of possibly redefining our mission, but this article is a real stinker and is entirely outside of any possible definition of what we should be doing. --Marlow (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Subject of riducule[edit]

Now, I admit some 12 years of bias-forming membership, but I'm very sure the Air Force and Coast Guard get more mockery than the Army. However, the Coast Guard don't get half the crap the Air Force do on a day to day basis in my experience. The Marines we rib good-naturedly, but admit their badassery and wouldn't want to try to do what they do.

Long story short, if I don't hear some persuasive arguments, I'm going to move that line about mockery over the the Air Force section, where it belongs. TeflonTrout (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA yeah, you're probably right. Air Force > Army every day of the week. Thanks for bombing ISIS! PB (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That depends on how the conditions of the engagement. They both supposed to complement each-other.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Chair force-Maeve (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Ahem ahem. PB (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
They have the coolest toys and the biggest booms, that is obvious. However, hey catch hell from the rest of us for having the lowest physical fitness standards this side of the coast guard and having the plushiest, coziest housing and facilities. We'd tease the coast guard more, but we very rarely interact with them. TeflonTrout (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Strangely hypocritical[edit]

I find it odd that a liberal website that is filled with tons and tons of articles about sexism, racism, and biographies of the most whiny people on the planet would allow this article to disrespect the military in such a manner. I'm not sure if this site is legit or meant to be satire.— Unsigned, by: Amnesty / talk / contribs 20:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly see nothing disrespectful in this article. Please explain. Arawn Emrys (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
New additions to talk pages should be moved to the bottom of the page. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
So why didn't you? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Laziness. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Your honesty does you credit. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
As a member of the Best (read: Largest) of the US Armed forces, this whole article looks like it was written by service members. It certainly matches the spirit of our in-person joking when we meet each other. Also, is User:Amnesty complaining about free speech in a post about those who swore to defend it? Where's Alanis Morissette, I have a lesson plan for her. TeflonTrout (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The capabilities of the U.S. military has been taken for granted[edit]

Seeing just how much Russia is struggling with its ill-conceived invasion of Ukraine, it's worth pointing out that many capabilities that we take for granted in the U.S. military is actually very difficult for other countries. For example, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), precision fires, strategic mobility, etc. 2600:8802:4513:1E00:B474:5A74:4E3F:452C (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)