• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

The US Marines are not noted for harming women and children. The US Marines are subordinate to SECDEF and the chain of command. This was, IMO, stupid on the leadership to request them to "don't take you gun to town son". What was proved other than their dedication, subordination and willingness to die that day if those in command were wrong. Yea, their safety is primary, for me. These Marines are someones kid, brother/sister, grandchild, husband/wife, they are not disposable toys, they're human beings.

Again, this was a dumb decision for show alone and proved nothing the the Afghans. Total PR for the current adminstration.
 
Last edited:
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'?


I would say that speaks to your comprehension abilities rather than to his partisanship level.
 
I totally understand the objections to this gesture of unarmed marines.

I really do. But work with me here.


This was symbolic. Their people came unarmed, our people came unarmed. That set the scene for the purpose of the whole affair.

Did you know that a Masonic Lodge is the ONLY place a LOT of police officers will enter divested of all metallic objects (ie: guns?) Did you know the entire foundation of our nation was based on the tenets of Freemasonry? There are things than many just do not understand.

Some things are bigger than what you or I can understand. (Well, maybe you.) Just trust and roll with it.

Besides, ANY jarhead I ever met can tear your head off and **** down your neck. They don't always need a gun to do what they can do. Semper Fi.
 
Last edited:
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.

Honor isn't that fragile. Nor is this decision dishonorable in anyway.

And frankly while I understand this is your opinion, I'd tell any Soldier or Marine that they shouldn't feel disrespected. No disrespect was intended, and I think we can be adult enough and unselfish enough to realize the PR concerns that motivated this decision and be mature enough not to be insulted when no insult was given. Do you understand what I'm saying there was no malice for Marines in the Secdef's mind, there's no disrespect for them there, but you've chosen to take it as an insult. Frankly, choose differently.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself by talking up the conviction and capability of Marines, and then saying something like this will prevent them from acting in top form? Really? Are you serious? Marines aren't that fragile, none of them are having a pity party for their honor nor performing their mission any less well because they put their rifle down that one time. Frankly I couldn't care how good they were at their jobs if something so small could break their capability, so what I'm saying is don't over state this.

Why can't we say "meh" and move on? It was not to possibly not offend the Afghans, ok fine whatever, who cares? Christ how the hell can I count on my Soldier's minds being focused on the task at hand if their minds are so fragile?

Personally I think Soldiers and Marines aren't as fragile as you're making them out to be, no one is really that offended by this in any way, and the primary motivation for all this fuss isn't genuine outrage but more like political opportunity.
 
Re: Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan

You left that part out buddy. It's not unreasonable to strip soldiers of their weapons when not in combat. I'm sure you or anyone else, myself included, can draw any number of equally logical and purely speculated reasons behind the decision, however, this does not change the fact that the only real evidence we have to go on is the statement given. And the reasoning behind their statement is not illogical.

Furthermore, the enemies to which he was referring are not necessarily a specific entity, but rather, any enemy we may make or face.
ANY time you ask marines to disarm for a political gathering in theater it is 'unreasonable'. Lets start with...DISARM.

Meh...I could stand any of the brass visits and dog and pony shows. Even as squadron NCOIC Id rather be checking AC red Xs or ferrying codes than do a meet and greet. Glad no one got killed. Just another day in paradise over there. Pretty sad to think the only real mission direction right now is coming from Kharzai. His 'request' that we pull back to major bases is the best thing that could have happened and we should fully accommodate. We should also tell him to go to hell AFTER kissing our ass if he EVER again issues a condemnation of the many based on the actions of the few. Best thing we could for that ****ing rat is leave the country...let him 'deal' with the Taliban alone.
 
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'?

One can be a complete partisian, i.e. absolutely agree with every facet of conservative or liberal ideology, and not be a "hack". A hack parrots the party line, even when what he states as fact is proven false, and continues to parrot it nonetheless. A hack doesn't give a fig about truth, and will knowingly argue a falsehood just because it's a falsehood that makes his party look good or the other party look bad.

MTP is a partisian. IMO, he is not a hack. :)
 
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'?

Then you haven't read many of my posts. Unlike you, my lean says independent. We know where you stand.
 
MTP is a good guy. If you don't already know that, go do your ****ing homework.
 
I haven't read the thread and I don't intent to. No person in the military and no veteran would agree with the dumbassery of telling Marines to disarm to "see" the SecDef. I promise you not more than 10 of those suffering bastards wanted to sit there and listen to the SecDef. They weren't there by choice. And NO ONE wanted to disarm.

On another thread a month ago I said that no one can **** up a war like a politician. I've seen it first hand. The dumbasses get people killed and the folks back home often don't understand. If you want to make ****ty morale even worse just let Washington **** with the troops. In my opinion they should only assemble officers to listening to visiting dignitaries, they're more closely related.

Seems Washington doesn't remember Marine guards humping the gates in Beirut with their weapons unloaded - as ordered. To this day it remains hard for me to believe anyone could be that goddamn stupid as to order such a thing ANYWHERE for someone humping a post, let alone in a war zone. For those of you who don't know the rest of the story about 300 Marines, sailors and soldiers died as a result.

Here we are about 25 years later and the same mindset lives. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
One can be a complete partisian, i.e. absolutely agree with every facet of conservative or liberal ideology, and not be a "hack". A hack parrots the party line, even when what he states as fact is proven false, and continues to parrot it nonetheless. A hack doesn't give a fig about truth, and will knowingly argue a falsehood just because it's a falsehood that makes his party look good or the other party look bad.

MTP is a partisian. IMO, he is not a hack. :)

Thank you that you don't think I'm a hack. However, I am not partisan. This isn't aimed at you but a general statement. I do not support any party nor will I ever as the current parties stand. I especially will not support a party that supports another day of troops in Afghanistan.
In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation.Partisan (political) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I haven't read the thread and I don't intent to. No person in the military and no veteran would agree with the dumbassery of telling Marines to disarm to "see" the SecDef. I promise you not more than 10 of those suffering bastards wanted to sit there and listen to the SecDef. They weren't there by choice. And NO ONE wanted to disarm.

On another thread a month ago I said that no one can **** up a war like a politician. I've seen it first hand. The dumbasses get people killed and the folks back home often don't understand. If you want to make ****ty morale even worse just let Washington **** with the troops. In my opinion they should only assemble officers to listening to visiting dignitaries, they're more closely related.

Seems Washington doesn't remember Marine guards humping the gates in Beirut with their weapons unloaded - as ordered. To this day it remains hard for me to believe anyone could be that goddamn stupid as to order such a thing ANYWHERE for someone humping a post, let alone a war zone. For those of you who don't know the rest of the story about 300 Marines, sailors and soldiers died as a result.

Here we are about 25 years later and the same mindset lives. Amazing.

All due respect sir, but I served honorably in the USN and in the reserves. I am a veteran. I have earned my opinion. And I understand it totally. But read my posts before you reply so you will know who you are addressing.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
 
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.

You dont know many marines, do you?
 
I haven't read the thread and I don't intent to. No person in the military and no veteran would agree with the dumbassery of telling Marines to disarm to "see" the SecDef. I promise you not more than 10 of those suffering bastards wanted to sit there and listen to the SecDef. They weren't there by choice. And NO ONE wanted to disarm.

On another thread a month ago I said that no one can **** up a war like a politician. I've seen it first hand. The dumbasses get people killed and the folks back home often don't understand. If you want to make ****ty morale even worse just let Washington **** with the troops. In my opinion they should only assemble officers to listening to visiting dignitaries, they're more closely related.

Seems Washington doesn't remember Marine guards humping the gates in Beirut with their weapons unloaded - as ordered. To this day it remains hard for me to believe anyone could be that goddamn stupid as to order such a thing ANYWHERE for someone humping a post, let alone in a war zone. For those of you who don't know the rest of the story about 300 Marines, sailors and soldiers died as a result.

Here we are about 25 years later and the same mindset lives. Amazing.

Hey Rusty, how do you really feel?
Note, I mostly agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom