First:Very first military branch of the United States Second:Rangers... Third:WestPoint Fourth:No Marine Presidents but Alot of Army Presidents Fifth:Forgot,George Washington was a grunt,not a jarhead. Sixth:Mogadishu(marines got pulled out,Delta and Rangers sent in)
For any other fellow grunts add in some reasons,and jarheads are welcome to flame their butts off =D
1 - Just because it's the first, doesn't make the best. 2 - Ever heard of Navy Seals? 4 - There's also a lot more people in the army, whereas the Marines is a smaller organization that is part of the Navy. In addition, far more recent presidents (last 50 years) have served in the Navy.
Besides, why serve in either when you can be a part of a discerning military group like the S.A.S.
You can't, well, shouldn't compare the two. Both have distinct purposes in a war situation. I grew up an Army brat, so my allegiance is with that branch IF I were to join the military. But I also have a few really good friends in the Marines, and I definitely would not want their job! If you like physical fitness, go Marines. If not, consider Army or Navy. It doesn't matter which presidents served under what branch. And you're forgetting that the Navy (Which covers Marines too. Look at their symbol) has their own school too.
i think the marines have more experience then the army because they have to be trained in being out at sea and hitting land. the special forces though... green berets are the best. like a small team of them can raid crap and they tip the balance when it comes to POW's
A fine decision my friend, a fine decision. I have a mate in the Royal Marines. He spent 8 months in the Persian Gulf chasing pirates they could never catch. I also have a brother in the paratroopers though. Now that sounds like a fun job.
My dad, a retired marine, says sweat more in training so you bleed less in combat. Of course my brother a ranger says the same thing. guess I'm in the they are both awesome category.
