• 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!

REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

iliveonramen said:
That is true...it's one thing if he actually advocated a real policy. Regarding Libya he was for it before he was against it. He criticized Obama for "leading from behind" so honestly Romney's foreign policy seems to be centered around "not what that guy did".

If he wants to be a strong foreign policy leader you kinda have to have an actual vision of what your foreign policy would look like.
Click to expand...

Romney and Vision is like saying Bush and Vocabulary.
 
iliveonramen said:
In what way? What exactly is Romney advocating? Bombing a pro-USA Libyian government? Sending marines to mow down protestors? How about after the release of a video that is purposely offensive he comes out saying that the Middle East needs to suck it up.

What exactly is Romney's policy in this decision? Be dumb but loud and bellicose?
Click to expand...

The more important question would be:

What is Obama and his band of merry idiots doing?

Not much, it appears.
 
Mycroft said:
From my own first-hand experiences in the U.S. Army, I know exactly what it feels like to not be allowed to perform your duty.

Ms. Patterson is an idiot.
Click to expand...



What is the fricking point of HAVING Marine guards if you don't let them have ammo for their weapons?
 
joko104 said:
The Pentagon denies the Marines were not allowed to have bullets... BUT clarifies that the decision would be up to each ambassador...

I think whether the Marines had bullets or not is a very relevant question that must be answered.
Click to expand...

The DoD is technically correct. However, at most embassies, any military personnel are required to keep their firearms or at the least their ammunition in a bunker or blast reinforced room.

Not a new problem. The majority of Marines on embassy duty are usually allowed to maintain one clip on their person, but in what would seem counter intuitive, they are more than likely to be restricted in embassies located in volatile countries to reduce the chance of "unintended discharge." Or at least that what they called it when they took my ammo (the clips they saw that is).
 
iliveonramen said:
In what way? What exactly is Romney advocating? Bombing a pro-USA Libyian government? Sending marines to mow down protestors? How about after the release of a video that is purposely offensive he comes out saying that the Middle East needs to suck it up.

What exactly is Romney's policy in this decision? Be dumb but loud and bellicose?
Click to expand...

Maybe to point out where Embassies were overrun and people killed on the anniversary of 9/11, with your guy on watch. :3oops:

But I almost forgot, he did kill OBL. That and $2.00 will get you on the Metrorail.
 
iliveonramen said:
In what way? What exactly is Romney advocating? Bombing a pro-USA Libyian government? Sending marines to mow down protestors? How about after the release of a video that is purposely offensive he comes out saying that the Middle East needs to suck it up.

What exactly is Romney's policy in this decision? Be dumb but loud and bellicose?
Click to expand...

Obama does not project strength. His policies are to talk with nothing to back them up, essentially the same as Carter.

Now, Im not a security expert. But I know that there are several crowd dispersal weapons that are not lethal. Everything from rubber bullets, sting grenades, flash bangs, tear gas, sonics, tasers, water cannons there are a lot of ways to disperse a crowd if you have enough personnel and are well prepared. We were not even badly prepared for what happened or what may be to come.

As for policy, Obama has accomodated those in opposition to us and refused to stand up for our allies enough that he is projecting weakness. He has a habit of waiting for certainty instead of projecting the idea of someone willing to shape events. The response from the White House was harsher towards Mitt Romney than it was towards those that killed our Ambassador! Thats a national disgrace.
 
Do these Islamists drink beer?

Perhaps another beer summit is in order.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I've heard stories. None of them good.
Click to expand...

One of the most distasteful is an old story. At one of the texas AFB's a medal of honor recipient was part of the honor guard. The general that met the clinton's told Chelsea that one of the men was a hero and had earned the MOH. Chelsea stopped to talk to him and hilary grabbed her daughter's arm and said something like "we don't have time to spend on the help"

People bashed Bush's military service but a JAG officer in my office (Lt Colonel USAR-retired) noted that bush knew how to properly salute military men and he knew damn well that when he met a MOH recipient he was to salute first. Clinton never figured that out but the officers and agents I know said they liked BIll. ITs his wife they despised
 
OpportunityCost said:
Obama does not project strength. His policies are to talk with nothing to back them up, essentially the same as Carter.

Now, Im not a security expert. But I know that there are several crowd dispersal weapons that are not lethal. Everything from rubber bullets, sting grenades, flash bangs, tear gas, sonics, tasers, water cannons there are a lot of ways to disperse a crowd if you have enough personnel and are well prepared. We were not even badly prepared for what happened or what may be to come.

As for policy, Obama has accomodated those in opposition to us and refused to stand up for our allies enough that he is projecting weakness. He has a habit of waiting for certainty instead of projecting the idea of someone willing to shape events. The response from the White House was harsher towards Mitt Romney than it was towards those that killed our Ambassador! Thats a national disgrace.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the world knows that if you piss off America Obama will send the robots to kill you and anybody nearby.

Scarier than simply bombing the **** out of anybody who doesnt lick our butt.
 
Goshin said:
What is the fricking point of HAVING Marine guards if you don't let them have ammo for their weapons?
Click to expand...

Psst. Story has been retracted.

OpportunityCost said:
Obama does not project strength. His policies are to talk with nothing to back them up, essentially the same as Carter.

Now, Im not a security expert. But I know that there are several crowd dispersal weapons that are not lethal. Everything from rubber bullets, sting grenades, flash bangs, tear gas, sonics, tasers, water cannons there are a lot of ways to disperse a crowd if you have enough personnel and are well prepared. We were not even badly prepared for what happened or what may be to come.

As for policy, Obama has accomodated those in opposition to us and refused to stand up for our allies enough that he is projecting weakness. He has a habit of waiting for certainty instead of projecting the idea of someone willing to shape events. The response from the White House was harsher towards Mitt Romney than it was towards those that killed our Ambassador! Thats a national disgrace.
Click to expand...

Ask all the dead Al-Qaeda leaders about Obama projecting strength. Thanks.

You're wrong about the WH's response, by the way.
 
Deuce said:
Ask all the dead Al-Qaeda leaders about Obama projecting strength. Thanks.

You're wrong about the WH's response, by the way.
Click to expand...

There's a fallacy with some of these detractors isn't there?

The idea that force or any show of force will in any way deter people who aren't afraid to die.

"They did what they did because they don't respect Obama or America".

Well if that's the case than George Bush had 0 respect didn't he?

OH **** LOGIC, MAKE IT STOP!
 
Mycroft said:
From my own first-hand experiences in the U.S. Army, I know exactly what it feels like to not be allowed to perform your duty.

Ms. Patterson is an idiot.
Click to expand...

This is unbelievable. Honestly, I can't believe it. She should be prosecuted, in my opinion. This is just gross negligence. This should not be one individual's decision. We should have a national police. And it should include our having the ability to defend ourselves on our own soil if we are attacked.
 
MaggieD said:
This is unbelievable. Honestly, I can't believe it. She should be prosecuted, in my opinion. This is just gross negligence. This should not be one individual's decision. We should have a national police. And it should include our having the ability to defend ourselves on our own soil if we are attacked.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unbelievable. You should trust those instincts.


(because it's not actually true.)
 
OpportunityCost said:
I know that there are several crowd dispersal weapons that are not lethal. Everything from rubber bullets, sting grenades, flash bangs, tear gas, sonics, tasers, water cannons there are a lot of ways to disperse a crowd if you have enough personnel and are well prepared. We were not even badly prepared for what happened or what may be to come.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why we should be prepared to use a graduated system of defense for non-combat situations. The problem is that I don't think any country will give us enough space for the ideal tactical situation for something like that.
 
notquiteright said:
I'll give some military experience about guards and ammo.

My wife was in ASA, a Morse code intercept operator. They eavesdropped on the Warsaw Pact's encoded CW transmissions. Their annual eval included them 'guarding' their building and barracks for a few days with empty weapons.

I was a grunt and we often pulled guard on the entire base in rotation with the other combat arm units. I NEVER, say again NEVER stood guard without ammo. Not even back in Ft. Lewis at the main PX, or the old barracks used as supply buildings.

It would be interesting to find out who is saying embassy guards stand post without ammo. Internet friends of a friend don't count.
Click to expand...

I was USAF Security Police. We carried loaded weapons when we were on duty, period. We were always armed and our weapons were always loaded. Always.
 
MaggieD said:
This is unbelievable. Honestly, I can't believe it. She should be prosecuted, in my opinion. This is just gross negligence. This should not be one individual's decision. We should have a national police. And it should include our having the ability to defend ourselves on our own soil if we are attacked.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time, Mags. The Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut when a yellow cab raced through the gate unchallenged and detonated by the Marine barracks killing 50 or more people. The Marines at the gate were not carrying loaded weapons. It was Sec. of Defense Casper Weinberger, under Ronald Reagan who was responsible for that directive. Nothing happened to Weinberger.

Washington never learns or either they don't really care that much about the troops. My opinion is that it is both.
 
So have we actually definitively concluded that these accusations are true, despite the fact that a Pentagon spokesman says it wasn't? Have the claims by the blog(s) been corroborated? Seems like a lot of folks are jumping on the "rush to criticism" bandwagon before actually ascertaining the facts. Just sayin'
 
We will never know...officially and truthfully...if these guys had ammo or not.

Frankly, I don't trust the Pentagon's statement. And, of course, any Marine caught posting to a blog about the truth would be stomped hard.

As I said...from personal experience...I know it does happen.
 
StillBallin75 said:
So have we actually definitively concluded that these accusations are true, despite the fact that a Pentagon spokesman says it wasn't? Have the claims by the blog(s) been corroborated? Seems like a lot of folks are jumping on the "rush to criticism" bandwagon before actually ascertaining the facts. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

No one in Washington has enough balls to put their head in that noose. The real answer is anyone's guess. But, you can bet your ass if security is breached and Americans die no one but no one in Washington will fall on that sword. Everyone will deny mandating unloaded weapons. One thing Washington does well is butt cover.
 
If the Obama Administration are sending a toothless tiger to the Middle East is beyond laughable ... it's plain stupid and a danger to the troops.
 
^^^

let's hope so
 
Mya said:
If the Obama Administration are sending a toothless tiger to the Middle East is beyond laughable ... it's plain stupid and a danger to the troops.
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly complex. It seems that agents provocateur representing Islamists (not Muslims) have seized the opportunity to excite local malcontents to protest and damage American Embassies and Consulates. Host government troops are really the people you want fighting off the local malcontents. Diplomatically it would seem the best policy. Marines dealing death to the malcontents would likely escalate the situation in most of those countries. You'd want to use the Marines as a last resort in most cases regarding the present attacks. At the same time it is pure idiocy not to allow them carry loaded weapons. It is even more stupid to announce it to the world. Both those things can surely get Marines killed.

Seems to me that there aren't a hell of a lot of options to consider. At the same time not allowing your defensive force to carry loaded weapons should never be an option.
 
Das Sozialist said:
It's not true, the article was updated and says it's a false report.

Click to expand...

As I said...I don't necessarily believe what might be a CYA announcement from the Pentagon, but we won't ever know what we can all believe is the truth.

Obama's habit of lying is coming home to roost.
 
Deuce said:
Psst. Story has been retracted.



Ask all the dead Al-Qaeda leaders about Obama projecting strength. Thanks.

You're wrong about the WH's response, by the way.
Click to expand...

No, Im not. The Obama admin sympathized with the rioters about how they felt about the movie (which isnt the entire reason they are rioting but excuses are excuses) but with Romney he went right after him.

Later after it was clear that people did not agree with the tone of the embassy reply he walked it back. The media narrative placed more emphasis on what Romney said than what the President was actually doing--again, disgraceful.

Bullet thing---true or false, the problem becomes our level of preparation was so poor that people were ready to believe this. We need to overhaul our State protocols on embassy and consulate protection. 4 dead bodies says its obvious we arent doing enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom