• 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

AdamT said:
Sounds to me like MarineTP is freaking out over nothing. The article makes it sound like it was a decision made by a new general who probably wasn't familiar with protocol. :violin
Click to expand...

Yeah really
More so: these some are freaking out and wondering why everyone else isn't doing the same.
 
Thrilla said:
i'd rather send the afghan army the message that that aren't trustworthy than send that very message to our Marines.
Click to expand...

We already know the Afghan army isn't trustworthy, because there are many incident of Afghan military and police blowing away their US trainers. Let me put it this way: Since the mutual mistrust is so high right now, and rightly so, and because they wanted to treat both countries' military the same in a show of equality for the Afghan people, I'd a helluva lot rather that they disarmed the Marines attending than allowed the Afghan soldiers attending to be armed. That's where I'm coming from.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.
Click to expand...

Good luck stopping a burning vehicle without opening fire into it to kill the driver.
 
Thrilla said:
i'd rather send the afghan army the message that that aren't trustworthy than send that very message to our Marines.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that message? There's no basis for that opinion at all, you've been given the reason behind the decision and whether that reason was right or wrong it's NOT the reason you seem to think it is.

Willful misinterpretation of facts, they don't fit your message so you just ignore them
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Do clips need to come with pacifiers now?

One doesn't have to like orders: one just has to follow them.

This entire situation wouldn't have been reported on if command line was in tact and thorough with this apparently given but not delivered order. . . so everyone really should be questioning why an order was given and not dissiminated rather than questioning the nature of the order itself.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wiseone said:
Where did you get that message? There's no basis for that opinion at all, you've been given the reason behind the decision and whether that reason was right or wrong it's NOT the reason you seem to think it is.

Willful misinterpretation of facts, they don't fit your message so you just ignore them
Click to expand...

it's what DiAnna wrote in her post.... but don't let that stop you from having your bitch fit.
 
DiAnna said:
We already know the Afghan army isn't trustworthy, because there are many incident of Afghan military and police blowing away their US trainers. Let me put it this way: Since the mutual mistrust is so high right now, and rightly so, and because they wanted to treat both countries' military the same in a show of equality for the Afghan people, I'd a helluva lot rather that they disarmed the Marines attending than allowed the Afghan soldiers attending to be armed. That's where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

I got where you were coming from... it's all good.

from a marine perspective.. it's a big ass no-no to not have my weapon within reach at all times while in theater... if there was a list of 10 Marine commandments, it would be in the top 3 for sure.
there is a time and place for everything.. flexing political and PC muscles for a SecDef dog and pony show is not that time or place though.
i'm perfectly fine with the afghans being disarmed and the marines retaining theirs at hand... I have absolutely zero problem with that scenario whatsoever.

i mean, you have to consider that Marines can and do get punished for not having thier weapons with them .. even in safe areas where risk is minimum
 
MarineTpartier said:
I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...

Not disrespectful in the least. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
 
This brings back memories of the phantom rifle I used to have after I came off a deployment... Waking up in the middle of the night and freaking out because I couldn't find my rifle -- then remembering I'd turned it in to the armory days ago.

Panetta?
I would've taken some lance corporal's place as a gear guard.
 
other said:
This brings back memories of the phantom rifle I used to have after I came off a deployment... Waking up in the middle of the night and freaking out because I couldn't find my rifle -- then remembering I'd turned it in to the armory days ago.

Panetta?
I would've taken some lance corporal's place as a gear guard.
Click to expand...
been there done that :lol:
 
Thrilla said:
I got where you were coming from... it's all good.

from a marine perspective.. it's a big ass no-no to not have my weapon within reach at all times while in theater... if there was a list of 10 Marine commandments, it would be in the top 3 for sure.
there is a time and place for everything.. flexing political and PC muscles for a SecDef dog and pony show is not that time or place though.
i'm perfectly fine with the afghans being disarmed and the marines retaining theirs at hand... I have absolutely zero problem with that scenario whatsoever.

i mean, you have to consider that Marines can and do get punished for not having thier weapons with them .. even in safe areas where risk is minimum
Click to expand...

Seriously, I understand. I hate that we have to "equalize" an army that routinely slaughters us. I hate that we are there after 11 ****ing years, when we should have been able to destroy them at Tora Bora if we had implemented the power of our artillary and not had to rely on an Afghan force that basically said, "Come this way, we won't tell"...

Our inability to shut down Al Queada's retreat into Pakistan because we didn't have enough firepower surrounding Tora Bora has led to a decade's-long involvement in a war we never should have created.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...

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.
 
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my rifle and myself are defenders of my country, we are the masters of my enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen."
Click to expand...

How can you teach someone the above quote, then make them useless?
You simply do not separate the soldier from the weapon anywhere in-country, ever.
 
Mickey Shane said:
How can you teach someone the above quote, then make them useless?
You simply do not separate the soldier from the weapon anywhere in-country, ever.
Click to expand...

The military also teaches you that you're a strong leader, invaluable to the military, and noble for your sacrificial actions = but routinely ditches soldiers within years of their military retirement and turns them out to the civilian world with little concern for the negative rippling effects on their psyche and familial wellbeing.

What does this tell you? The military is really good at drilling **** into your head that make you a better weapon.

That is their job.

to believe the bull**** is yours.
 
180px-Taupini%C3%A8re_-_mole-hill.JPG
 
Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan

Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan

Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan - Telegraph


Less than a week after a US staff sergeant allegedly massacred 16 civilians in Kandahar, American soldiers were banned from bringing guns into a talk by Mr Panetta at a base in Helmand province.

Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told "something had come to light" and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.
Click to expand...



Wow this is a first, or is it? The administration seems to think so, or do we believe it was this General?

Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all.
"You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," he told the New York Times, insisting that the decision was unrelated to Sunday's killings. "This is not a big deal."
Click to expand...


Oh, but sir, it is.

However, US troops often remain armed even when their Afghan colleagues have been asked to lay down their weapons and the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence.
Click to expand...


And Mr. Panetta, who apperently doesn't trust our troops, (or if you believe it was the Genreal, he).... states:


"We will be challenged by our enemies, we will be challenged by ourselves, we will be challenged by the hell of war itself," he said.
Click to expand...



Who are are enemies Mr. Panetta? your boss has said it isn't the Taliban......


Why are we still there?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Re: Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan

The Ministry of Defence was unable to confirm reports that a small number of British troops had also been asked to put down their weapons.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...

Considering the fact they are in a war zone every soldier,marine, airmen, seaman and DOD civilian should be armed heck even Panetta should be armed.
 
theangryamerican said:
I think it's pretty telling when a government doesn't trust not only their citizens, but even their own soldiers to be armed in their presence.
Click to expand...

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?
 
AdamT said:
Sounds to me like MarineTP is freaking out over nothing. The article makes it sound like it was a decision made by a new general who probably wasn't familiar with protocol. :violin
Click to expand...

Protocol? There is no protocol for this. That's the point. We stay armed, that's it. You and I have posted in quite a few of the same threads. When have you seen me freak out over nothing? No disrespect to anyone, but most civilians wouldn't understand the magnitude of this act. It means a lot to us. I know it may not to you guys, but it does to us. I brought this story to work today and didn't get a single positive reaction out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom