U.S. Marines ordered to disarm for Sec. of Defense.

[Nebor]

Just showing that disarming troops is NOT standard procedure. I met Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in Afghanistan and we all still had our weapons. This thread is full of fucking knuckleheads.

 

[monovillage]

It was ordered by the base commander. Afghani soldiers are always disarmed when in barracks, and in such functions; their weapons remaining outside. The commander estimated that it would be a good move to show solidarity by having US soldiers unarmed, as well, nothing more. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe it wasn't.


slow news day, or what?

Even MSNBC finds it highly unusual, so I guess it wasn't just a slow news day. Officials at the pentagon called it "stupid"

'Sends the wrong message'
Military officials in Washington told NBC News' chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski that the decision to disarm the Marines was indeed significant.

"It sends the wrong message" that Marines can't be trusted in the presence of the secretary of defense," one told him.
According to one official the decision was "stupid."

Miklaszewski also told NBC's Chuck Todd Wednesday that the move was "highly unusual" and that Marines in combat zones are always supposed to have weapons within their reach.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...es-asked-to-disarm-before-leon-panetta-speech

 

[DAVNRA]

If candy assed politicians do not want to be in danger, then don't visit hostile areas. The polices may have changed in today's PC Chickensh#t adminstration; however, as a retired US Army Military Policeman, we never went anywhere on duty and especially in a combat theater without out bullets and bullet launchers (oh by the way, we slept with our rifles in our bunks/cots or on the ground. Any general who does not trust his troops should not be in that position.

Did the U.S Govenment or US Army disarm soldiers in Vietnam after the Amercal incident in My Lai where up to 500 Vietnamese civilians were killed? The answer is no...

It is amazing how many Monday morning quaterbacks, never having served in the military or ever been under fire before and deployed multiple times to combat areas, are behavior experts. The SSG that is accused of killing 16 Afghans suffered severe brain trauma in 2009 and the Sigmund Frauds clear him for yet another tour in a combat zone.

The Marine general is a PC coward... a Marine was not involved in the Afghan incident, it was an alledged US Army Staff Sergeant deployed from Ft Lewis, WA.

 

[Doppel]

If you are in the profession of arms, and your boss (commander) doesn't trust you with arms, then one of you is in the wrong profession.

This is simply naive. Secret Service go through a massive vetting process in part because anyone of them could kill who they are trying to defend. Confidence has to be high that they won't do it. A marine or any other soldier hasn't gone through this and thus cannot be implicitly trusted to have a firearm around a target.

Any general who does not trust his troops should not be in that position.

So the commander in chief for example should be able to trust each of the hundreds of thousands of military personnel? That's pretty realistic, yeah I guess he and/or secret service have gone through the dossier of each one.

Just showing that disarming troops is NOT standard procedure.

Apparently not.

 

[umbrella39]

Somebody found a new ISP and ALT... fantastic first post!

For Nebor... I can clearly see the guns in the photo of Rumsfeld and Bush, can't really pick any out well in the photos of Obama. Is that by design or meant to illustrate something?

 

[Nebor]

Somebody found a new ISP and ALT... fantastic first post!

For Nebor... I can clearly see the guns in the photo of Rumsfeld and Bush, can't really pick any out well in the photos of Obama. Is that by design or meant to illustrate something?

There are rifle slings and shoulder holsters in the Obama pictures.

 

[Nebor]

This is simply naive. Secret Service go through a massive vetting process in part because anyone of them could kill who they are trying to defend. Confidence has to be high that they won't do it. A marine or any other soldier hasn't gone through this and thus cannot be implicitly trusted to have a firearm around a target.So the commander in chief for example should be able to trust each of the hundreds of thousands of military personnel? That's pretty realistic, yeah I guess he and/or secret service have gone through the dossier of each one.Apparently not.

Well how about this: My job is to fight the wars you send me to fight. I have to keep my weapons with me at all times in order to do my job. If you don't trust me enough to be around me while I have my weapons, then stay the fuck away from me. Because otherwise, you're just stopping people from doing their job, and in that event, why'd you send them over there in the first place?

 

[Sacrilege]

Somebody found a new ISP and ALT... fantastic first post!

For Nebor... I can clearly see the guns in the photo of Rumsfeld and Bush, can't really pick any out well in the photos of Obama. Is that by design or meant to illustrate something?

I have decided to re-do my post on a serious note.

Allegedly a Marine general ordered the US Marines to disarm, so as not to make their present Afghan counterparts feel 2nd class. It's a really sad state of affairs that the Afghans cannot apparently be trusted. Is Karzai allowed to get near Obama with no American guards close by? Is there any precedent in previous wars of disarming foreign "allies" when a dignitary addresses them, but allowing US soldiers to keep arms? Were the South Vietnamese disarmed when listening to American officials speak? How about Iraq?

 

[Nebor]

I have decided to re-do my post on a serious note.

Allegedly a Marine general ordered the US Marines to disarm, so as not to make their present Afghan counterparts feel 2nd class. It's a really sad state of affairs that the Afghans cannot apparently be trusted. Is Karzai allowed to get near Obama with no American guards close by? Is there any precedent in previous wars of disarming foreign "allies" when a dignitary addresses them, but allowing US soldiers to keep arms? Were the South Vietnamese disarmed when listening to American officials speak? How about Iraq?

It's pretty standard for host nation troops not to be armed. You have to realize that for them, they're in garrison (at home.) So just like us, they don't carry weapons around while they're at home. From our perspective, we're deployed to a combat zone, where anything could happen at any time.

To say that it's a sad state of affairs is an understatement. At this time the greatest threat to ISAF soldiers is their Afghan counter-parts killing them.

 

[JSt0rm]

mono, yet again you are putting your own super-negative spin on the news and blatantly disregarding the actual facts. This was not a matter of the civilians not distrusting the marines. The order came from the US military. In addition to troops from other NATO countries present, there were Afgan troops as well, all of whom were already disarmed. The military's reason for disarming the US troops was so that their Afgan allies would not feel second class. It was to foster camaderie.

Geesh.

This. If you got your news from real sources you would know this.

 

[zinfamous]

Even MSNBC finds it highly unusual, so I guess it wasn't just a slow news day. Officials at the pentagon called it "stupid"



http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...es-asked-to-disarm-before-leon-panetta-speech

It is unusual.

But like I said, Newshour reported that it was a decision by the base commander and no one else. This had nothing to do with "candy ass politicians," but the military commander on the ground. He appears to have thought it an "olive branch" to their Afghani comrades that up until this day, were forced to leave their weapons outside when sharing space with armed US soldiers.


But, yes: make it the story you want it to be. You guys love that sort of thing.

 

[Nebor]

I would again point out that in about 75% of "partnered" hours, ISAF forces are armed and ANSF are not. They don't carry weapons around on their Army bases any more than we do. It doesn't make them feel second class, they want us to have our weapons.

 

[zinfamous]

If candy assed politicians do not want to be in danger, then don't visit hostile areas. The polices may have changed in today's PC Chickensh#t adminstration; however, as a retired US Army Military Policeman, we never went anywhere on duty and especially in a combat theater without out bullets and bullet launchers (oh by the way, we slept with our rifles in our bunks/cots or on the ground. Any general who does not trust his troops should not be in that position.

Did the U.S Govenment or US Army disarm soldiers in Vietnam after the Amercal incident in My Lai where up to 500 Vietnamese civilians were killed? The answer is no...

It is amazing how many Monday morning quaterbacks, never having served in the military or ever been under fire before and deployed multiple times to combat areas, are behavior experts. The SSG that is accused of killing 16 Afghans suffered severe brain trauma in 2009 and the Sigmund Frauds clear him for yet another tour in a combat zone.

The Marine general is a PC coward... a Marine was not involved in the Afghan incident, it was an alledged US Army Staff Sergeant deployed from Ft Lewis, WA.

You created an account simply to make an angry, uninformed post.

nice, you'll fit in swell at P&N.

 

[Nebor]

It is unusual.

But like I said, Newshour reported that it was a decision by the base commander and no one else. This had nothing to do with "candy ass politicians," but the military commander on the ground. He appears to have thought it an "olive branch" to their Afghani comrades that up until this day, were forced to leave their weapons outside when sharing space with armed US soldiers.


But, yes: make it the story you want it to be. You guys love that sort of thing.

In this case, the "military commander on the ground," appears to be a "candy ass politician."

 

[zinfamous]

Somebody found a new ISP and ALT... fantastic first post!

For Nebor... I can clearly see the guns in the photo of Rumsfeld and Bush, can't really pick any out well in the photos of Obama. Is that by design or meant to illustrate something?

Bush next to dudes with guns = Putin being photographed shirtless with a bigass fishing pole.

that sort of thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

Do you really believe that?

Do I believe that someone in authority will try to cover his ass after the brass is under pressure for recent violent incidents on their watch? Yes, actually I do.

 

[monovillage]

This. If you got your news from real sources you would know this.

May as well attack the OP since you don't like the story or his 2 different sources. Go ahead and look up you own source since we all know that MSNBC is such a right wing site.

 

[monovillage]

Bush next to dudes with guns = Putin being photographed shirtless with a bigass fishing pole.

that sort of thing.

Stop trying to derail the thread, stay on topic or don't post at all.

 

[trenchfoot]

I like the pic's of Rumsfeld and Bush talking with troops in staged photo op's. Now would someone please tell me how it's absolutely known that those troops magazines had rounds in them? And if they are candid pic's, where are the closely distanced and suspiciously alert SS agents who we defintely know are armed with everything but the kitchen sink in those pic's? Just ask'in.

I'm sure there were armed troops who were part of the security detail assigned to those photo ops if in fact they were shot where the scenery suggests, just as there would have been in those pic's of Obama, so maybe a more appropriate representation of pic's that support the poster's opinion could have been chosen?

 

[monovillage]

I like the pic's of Rumsfeld and Bush talking with troops in staged photo op's. Now would someone please tell me how it's absolutely known that those troops magazines had rounds in them? And if they are candid pic's, where are the closely distanced and suspiciously alert SS agents who we defintely know are armed with everything but the kitchen sink in those pic's? Just ask'in.

I'm sure there were armed troops who were part of the security detail assigned to those photo ops if in fact they were shot where the scenery suggests, just as there would have been in those pic's of Obama, so maybe a more appropriate representation of pic's that support the poster's opinion could have been chosen?

I liked the staged photo ops with President Obama even more.

 

[dennilfloss]

Americans keep wanting the right to bear arms because they don't trust the government and they somehow get surprised when the feeling is reciprocal.:hmm:

 

[EagleKeeper]

He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.

Everyone overlook this phrase?

 

[Exterous]

Everyone overlook this phrase?

I think by now it should be obvious that reading comprehension is not the strong poing of 80% of AT P&N posters (regardless of what 'side' they are on)

 

[chimaxi83]

mono, yet again you are putting your own super-negative spin on the news and blatantly disregarding the actual facts. This was not a matter of the civilians not distrusting the marines. The order came from the US military. In addition to troops from other NATO countries present, there were Afgan troops as well, all of whom were already disarmed. The military's reason for disarming the US troops was so that their Afgan allies would not feel second class. It was to foster camaderie.

Geesh.

uhh, the Afghan troops ARE second class. How much more often do their ranks get infiltrated (or they're just pro Taliban to begin with)?

 

[Nebor]

I like the pic's of Rumsfeld and Bush talking with troops in staged photo op's. Now would someone please tell me how it's absolutely known that those troops magazines had rounds in them? And if they are candid pic's, where are the closely distanced and suspiciously alert SS agents who we defintely know are armed with everything but the kitchen sink in those pic's? Just ask'in.

I'm sure there were armed troops who were part of the security detail assigned to those photo ops if in fact they were shot where the scenery suggests, just as there would have been in those pic's of Obama, so maybe a more appropriate representation of pic's that support the poster's opinion could have been chosen?

I can tell they're loaded from the pixels, and having seen quite a few magazines in my time.