Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 161

Thread: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

  1. #51
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Why is there still this jumping to conclusion that its a trust issue? There's no evidence for it, you have the official story and then you have this made up story about trust without backing. Here's my conclusion, anyone who jumps to a political convenient conclusion without any basis is just a partisan hack.
    Because its unprecedented thats why. BTW, I'm not partisan hack if you care to read some of my other posts.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  2. #52
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    pacifiers?.. really?

    the order was given... i'm not sure where you get the idea it wasn't given.

    it was a stupid order.. Marine understand this... most will have an issue with it , then shrug and carry on.. like we always do when some twit of an officer comes up with a stupid idea.
    The bold happens a lot btw
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  3. #53
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Odd... the story over here is that it was the Afghan's who were forced to surrender their arms in their own country... so I am guessing to appease the outrage, the Generals did what a good General should do.... order their own troops also to surrender their arms, so not to offend their Afghans any more than has already has happened.
    Odd...we wouldn't be there to begin with if they didn't hide terrorists. Odd....if they hadn't made a habit of murdering service members simply trying to train them this wouldn't have happened. Odd.....in Iraq we allowed 20 Iraqi scouts to come to a memorial service for a guy we lost on a helo raid....armed. Odd....politicial correctness is one of the reasons we haven't beaten the Taliban already. Odd....that you have internet access "over there" that allows you to post on this website. That speaks to where you are in the war more than anything.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  4. #54
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Yes, because as we know there is absolutely no history of American soldiers going on killing rampages in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. What were they thinking?
    Yeah, because of the over 2 million troops we've deployed (and that was in 2009) we have had how many incidents like that? Great reach bud.
    BACKGROUND: US has deployed more than 2,000,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Because its unprecedented thats why. BTW, I'm not partisan hack if you care to read some of my other posts.
    Your logic fails me, but perhaps I was jumping to my own conclusions. And while its unprecedented or at the very least rare, that doesn't instantly mean its because the SecDef doesn't trust the Soldiers that's where your logic fails. You're looking at the end state which could be the result of several different reasons or lines of thought, BUT assuming the worst reason without any basis.

    For example:
    Maybe a security staffer was overzealous, that could result in Marines being disarmed.
    Maybe the official reason is the exact reason, that could result in Marines being disarmed.
    Maybe the SecDef personally didn't trust the Marines, that could result in Marines being disarmed.
    Maybe a staffer was thinking of PR for back in the states and thinking a picture with armed Marines wouldnt look nice, that could result in Marines being disarmed.

    See there are several ways to reach the current endstate which was Marines being disarmed, why are we jumping to the one without any basis and ignoring the one that has basis? And why does the conclusion we are jumping to, again the one with no basis, also happen to be one the one most politically damaging for the administration? It has the most politically rhetorical value, to me that says because many of the people in this topic are looking for a way to attack the administration instead of looking for facts. I'm a man of facts, politics means nothing to me.

    Now I can understand why it would make people feel untrusted, especially Marines. HOWEVER, what people feel about it doesn't have anything to do with why it was done. A staffer could have made this PR decision and had an unintended effect of making people feel distrusted, because something was the result of someone's actions doesn't mean it was the intent of their actions. I mean why would the SecDef or a staffer want to make people think they don't trust the Marines?

    And why wouldn't they trust them? There's another question that doesn't have an answer? You can "Why would they want to make the Afghans feel better?" and there's a million reasons for that. But you ask why would they want Marines to think they don't trust them, and there's no reason to.

  6. #56
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    You're being over dramatic, I mean ridiculously so. It's your choice to be so offended by this instead of seeing it for exactly what it is, just a minor thing the result of a concern for the PR aspects of the mission. And that's it, what the Afghans think is a constant concern and for better or worse, right or wrong, part of the mission. I can understand the frustration, but that's the mission.
    This was utterly stupid on the SECDEF's and General's part. What PR did they attain. IYO? My concern is the US Military and their collective safety. Everything else comes 2nd.

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Because its unprecedented thats why. BTW, I'm not partisan hack if you care to read some of my other posts.
    I have never read a single post of yours that I would categorize as anything other than extreme right wing. And you claim not to be a 'partisan hack'?

  8. #58
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    The bold happens a lot btw
    Good to see you have respect for your officers.

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    This was utterly stupid on the SECDEF's and General's part. What PR did they attain. IYO? My concern is the US Military and their collective safety. Everything else comes 2nd.
    Gee, my concern is that the U.S. military remain subordinate to civilian leadership and that they only kill enemies, not women and children. If safety is the primary concern of the U.S. military, maybe they ought to find a new profession.

  10. #60
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Now I can understand why it would make people feel untrusted, especially Marines. HOWEVER, what people feel about it doesn't have anything to do with why it was done. A staffer could have made this PR decision and had an unintended effect of making people feel distrusted, because something was the result of someone's actions doesn't mean it was the intent of their actions. I mean why would the SecDef or a staffer want to make people think they don't trust the Marines?

    And why wouldn't they trust them? There's another question that doesn't have an answer? You can "Why would they want to make the Afghans feel better?" and there's a million reasons for that. But you ask why would they want Marines to think they don't trust them, and there's no reason to.
    The Marines are doing a damned difficult job, with their lives on the line hourly, for little more than chicken scratch. These guys are running on personal dedication and devotion to a code of honor alone. When someone as important as the SecDef belittles the honor of Marines, for whatever reason, it takes away something intangible that it is vital, absolutely critical to keep our Marines functioning in top form. Whatever the reason is for disarming the Marines, it's a significant blunder of leadership to affront their honor in this way. We cannot toss away the honor of a warrior with a casual "however" and a wave of the hand. Capable leadership would never geld their own best warriors this way.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •