Marines are not called soldiers
 

I just had a long debate trying to convince a guy who really wants to call all Servicemen "soldiers". It started out as Marines are not called Soldiers because...they are Marines.

This guy said "Soldiers are defined as serving in a military. All the above serve in the military, therefore they are under the umbrella of a soldier. But if defined by what society wants sure."

You call people in the Navy, Sailors. Air Force is Airmen. Now got you "jobs" in the branches like Navy pilots, Air Force pilots and Marine pilots.

But in the board sense, each branch are called their respective terms. Marines are not Soldiers.

I want to know other people's opinions about this.

That guy was definitely in the minority.

Yeah, definitely. He should try calling a Marine a Soldier to his face and see what kind of tongue lashing he gets.

Let's hope it can be limited to a tongue lashing.

Is there more depth or a more articulated argument as to why Marines aren't called soldiers or is it some hurrdurr pride/semantics thing? You haven't exactly convinced me of the former.

Marines, historically, have a distinct function, that of naval infantry. Nowadays, at least with the USMC, that role is slightly blurred, with the Marines doing many of the same things as the Army, but yes, there is a difference.

Which is? You still haven't explained it.

10 characters

Okay, so your argument is that they are infantry for a separate branch ffrom the Army and that makes them not "soldiers". So you're saying the "soldier" title is exclusive to the Army branch and not others?

If that's what you're saying, then why is that the case?

Well, since you're the one challenging the status quo, why do YOU think that Marines should be called "soldiers?" And should Marine aviators be called airmen?

If you want to REALLY dumb it down, soldiers are land based infantry, and marines are naval infantry. Historically this is where the distinction comes from.

I personally don't care what they're called. If anything I call those in the service what they are (as in "I know a guy who was a pilot in the Marines" or "I know a guy who was an Armorer in the Army") or I refer to them by branch then rank. If speaking about them generally, I'll probably end up calling Army guys soldiers and Marines will be referred to as Marines, but that's inconsequential. From that natural response and for the sake of arguing for or against Excalibur's point, I'm asking if there is some solid distinction to be made other than what I consider blowhard and silly branch rivalry or semantics, for my own personal knowledge or for the sake of agreeing or disagreeing with Excalibur's argument. That's just the logical way of figuring out where to stand as opposed to agreeing with the status quo just because "it is what it is".

And this is reasonably articulated evidence for the argument in favor of the separation of terms. So given this is true and perhaps elaborated upon, I'd say yeah, you shouldn't call Marines soldiers.

Either way it's nitpicking and a dumb thing to argue about.

That doesn't alter the fact that there is a difference.

Marines want to be called Marines and those who are in the Army are called soldiers. That's how everyone wants it. So that's how it is. Sometimes things have to be accepted at face value and not over thought. Branch rivalry is just boys being boys.

Not true, while infantry is the back-bone of the Army and the Marines about 80-90% of both the Army and Marines are non-combat support.

True if you were solely speaking of the Infantry branch.

As I recall this is strictly a USMC thing, Royal Marines over here don't seem to mind being called soldiers.

im in the i dont give a crap category, some things aren't worth getting wound up over.

We aren't getting wound up, it's a matter of is and is nots. A wheel isn't a tire, a truck isn't a car, a bullet isn't a cartridge, a clip isn't a magazine, and so on. The word "Soldier", like the term "Special Forces", isn't an umbrella term in the US military.

<< This 123456789

It's also kind of dorky getting all wound up about it as well in my honest opinion.

I can't believe we're still talking about this.

We distinguish between AKMs and Type 56s and Beretta 92s and PT-92s. Why is this one of the subjects where using the right terminology doesn't matter? :confused:

A Type 56 isn't an AKM.
A PT-92 isn't a Beretta 92.
A Marine isn't a Soldier.

I don't think he means on the site, I think he means in general.

Well regular people mostly either don't care or not educated enough to tell the difference between someone in the US Army and someone in the US Marine Corp.

A Marine isn't going to mistake himself by identifying as a "soldier". He'll say he's a Marine.

We go to weapons, we call all AKs "AK47" even though most we see on shows and movies aren't. Or we just call them AK as an umbrella term.

A Type 56 is a type of AK-47
A PT-92 is a type of Beretta 92
A Marine is a type of soldier

Hence a Marine is a soldier.

Bam! /Thread closed

I believe the general issue with it is the unique nature of the USMC as an all-aspect combat unit. A US Marine could potentially have a job described as soldier, airman or sailor, and it sits a lot less naturally calling a sailor a type of soldier since the traditional definition of soldier emphasises land-based combat.

Ultimately it's just an inter-service pride thing (same as the various SF units who insist they're "operators" rather than soldiers, I guess), but there is a reasonly sensible case for doing it in terms of what the USMC actually does.

Okay, when you get into machines the line is completely different. Type 56s and Chinese AKs are easily an offshoot of AK-47s, same battery of arms, the parts are more or less interchangeable, and they come from com-block nations that were in bed with one another. Yes, there are nuances but the parts and action, the essentials if you will, are the same. They're related.

PT-92s and Beretta 92s, however similar they are in appearance and granted that the Brazilian guns were allegedly built with Beretta machines and tools, are not the same nor is the PT-92 a type of Beretta. They each have a different battery of arms, the parts are not interchangeable and when you couple that with their other differences from the Beretta 92, the PT-92s are not the same as Berettas nor are they a "type" of Beretta, they are a gun that's similar but all it's own. If we really get into the semantics of your counterargument then we have to delve into how many guns are actually 1911s or Glocks since those are two of the most prolific pistol designs ever, even though in reality they are just two guns.

Just the same, a Marine in general terms does the same duty as a soldier in the Army, boots on the ground, and given the super complex nuances that come with each branch, it's reasonable to assume that people would use the terms interchangeably unless they were educated enough to see a distinction, and that includes one beyond rhetoric which is what some of you are pitching. Just saiyan.

But you're using "AK-47" as an umbrella term, whereas I was referring to the actual, specific Soviet-made rifle. So no, a Type 56 isn't an AK-47 in this case.

YNH explained this better than I did, so I'll move on.

Another word you're using as an Umbrella term when it's not used as such in the US military. Like calling SEALs, "Special Forces", when Special Forces is a specific unit with unique mission perimeters that the SEALs don't share.

Or maybe we can just extend them the common courtesy of calling them what they want to be called. For what the USMC has done for this nation, I think they've earned it.

I was just playing Devil's Advocate but yeah lets just close this thread. This is just retarded.