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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552
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.
|
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.