• 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

Beaudreaux-
What Military did you serve in?

I ask because I dropped n slopped MAGAZINES in my Mattel toy and charged my MAGAZINES with stripper CLIPS. So I didn't carry any CLIPS on guard duty. Did out in the bush, to reload my MAGAZINES.

Funny how many want to believe so badly any story they will cling to it no matter what.

Interesting how many think there was something that could have stopped this IF a 'conservative' was incharge. I seem to recall many terrorist attacks when Reagan was our President. He bombed some tents and killed one girl in that one. Lost a pilot in doing so.
 
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...

That's true there are a lot of crowd dispersal technology out there. The question is....is it Marines jobs to disperse crowds on foreign soil? Sure protect our staff....there's no question they have a right (in my opinion) to fire on individuals when their lives or that of the diplomatic staff are threatened. They have no busines dispersing crowds though.

I always have an issue with the projection of strength. Did Reagan project strength when he ordered US military personel to leave Lebenon? I think it was a good move. This beat your chest machismo bs isn't projecting strength. It makes you sound like some 2 bit dictator. I'll take the guy that's cool under pressure and has a measured response every day of the week..
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060911412 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please...that's offensive. No Liberal was talking about 3 thousand people dying on the watch of George Bush. Instead we were united in finding the culprits and making sure it doesn't happen again. The fact you make some comment shows how partisan and far gone you are.
 
Mycroft said:
The more important question would be:

What is Obama and his band of merry idiots doing?

Not much, it appears.
Click to expand...

He's dealing with countries that have their own internal politics taking place. Foreign policy isn't "you're either with us or against us". It's a little more complicated so sorry if he doesn't lob missle's into a Pro-American Libyan government controlled country and doesn't land 82 Airborne in the Egyptian Embassy.
 
iliveonramen said:
Please...that's offensive. No Liberal was talking about 3 thousand people dying on the watch of George Bush. Instead we were united in finding the culprits and making sure it doesn't happen again. The fact you make some comment shows how partisan and far gone you are.
Click to expand...

Are you freeking kidding? Damn right they were saying that, and a lot of other stuff besides. Like how America was finally getting it's comeuppance. Like how some liberals felt nauseated to see so many American flags flying from windows.

Here is a review of the problems with the left's response to 9-11 from a member of the left:

http://dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d12Cottee.pdf
 
Lowdown-
It would truly help your case if you just tag in the quotes that address 'liberals claiming the USofA is getting it's come uppance'.

from what I read the dialogue back and forth was the Neo-cons claiming they hate us for our freedoms, and a great number of people from all but the most radical right thinking our constant intervention for tyrants as opposed to interventions for nationalists was causing blowback.

The problem with such discussions is there are always some wingnuts on BOTH sides who are clueless as to the whys and determined to insert their own agenda into a suck ass situation.
 
This entire thread is stupid because the OP's link had the story wrong. Reactionaries spouting false or half truths to get people to react negatively towards the president.


**UPDATE**

Further Marine spokesman at Pentagon Lt Col Chris Hughes says these reports are NOT true. This is on the record:

“The Ambassador and RSO have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB Cairo.”



Read more: REPORTS: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo **UPDATE** - US Embassy Attack - Fox Nation
 
notquiteright said:
Beaudreaux-
What Military did you serve in?
Click to expand...

Ours, and faithfully. How about you?

notquiteright said:
I ask because I dropped n slopped MAGAZINES in my Mattel toy and charged my MAGAZINES with stripper CLIPS. So I didn't carry any CLIPS on guard duty. Did out in the bush, to reload my MAGAZINES.
Click to expand...

Go back to playing with your toys then, adults are having a discussion.

notquiteright said:
Funny how many want to believe so badly any story they will cling to it no matter what.
Click to expand...

Also interesting how some who wouldn't ordinarily believe an obvious CYA release from the Pentagon jump to when it suits their bias.

notquiteright said:
Interesting how many think there was something that could have stopped this IF a 'conservative' was incharge. I seem to recall many terrorist attacks when Reagan was our President. He bombed some tents and killed one girl in that one. Lost a pilot in doing so.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Not stopped, the difference is in responce. And not liberal or conservative POTUS, hell Clinton would have responded without feeling the protesters pain. It's about THIS president, and HIS response.

As for Reagan, you left something out - Ghadaffi stopped ****ing with the US for decades after Reagan pounded him. And the dead girl you so flippantly trot out was part of a human shield Ghadaffi thought would protect him.
 
Risky Thicket said:
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.
Click to expand...


You need to read up on your history a bit.There were certainly "more" than 50 killed in the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, actually 242 died that day. Five minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French paratroopers at their barracks.

The bombs were not in taxis but in large delivery trucks. The marines were expecting a delivery of water and allowed the driver to circle the parking lot without trying to stop him. Once he was lined up with the two gates, the bomber accelerated and drove all the way into the lobby of the barracks where the bomb ignited.


Marine-barracks-bombing-in-Beirut-via-Wikimedia-Commons1.jpg
 
Clownboy-
nice to see you answered for Beaudreaux, who I was addressing for his use of 'clips' instead of magazines.

I was a grunt in the Army.

Back in my day the M16a1 had a few nicknames, Mattel toy was one of them, I am very much an adult.

Like I said, some will go to any length to believe what they want to. No proof the Marines were not 'hot', several vets saying they never stood a guard without ammo and in far less dangerous places.

Nothing this President has done is out of line, what you seem to endorse was the tough line and swaggering cowboy style that created as many problems as MIGHT have been solved. Many wild eyed, bomb them back to the stone age/nuke them all/ whatever ranters here are envoking BushII or even St. Reagan, neither of whom had much success at stopping terrorism.

Now because I am quite grown-up let me tell you about president Reagan and 1986 bombing you seem to think pounded Ghaddafi into submission-

(oh FYI he wasn't in the tent when it was bombed so no 'human shield')

1986 Reagan orders the bombing of key sites to include Ghaddafi's tent.

in 1987 Libya is fomenting trouble in Australian held trusts, was caught shipping arms to European terrorists, Jorge Haider got 10 million for more Euro-terror from Iraq and Libya.

The OPM got support in Indonesia

Libya continued to train paramilitary subversive groups from around the world.

Now the nut punch to the USofA-

Lockerbie 1988

Now look at that date, two years AFTER President Reagan 'pounded' Libya. So he didn't stop anything. Libya continued to train terrorists, ship arms, bankroll terrorists, and then finally pull off a massive terrorist attack of a civilian airliner over Scotland.

Reagan overall didn't stop anything, from his ill conceived use of Marines in Lebanon (1983) that cost 241 men their lives to the bombing of Libya that was answered by Pam Am flight # 103.

Nice try at rewriting history... :roll:
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

And there it is. You have no evidence at all that the report is true in the first place, but you're choosing to believe it because you don't like the president.
 
OnWisconsin said:
This entire thread is stupid because the OP's link had the story wrong.
Click to expand...

Amazing how suddenly left wingers find the Pentagon to be so credible.

I don't think this is settled yet. No matter how you cut it this was ****ed up beyond all belief.

Here's the BBC's take on the attack. They report that some of the embassy security people, which consisted in part of Lybians, just dropped their weapons and ran. Those that were left fired back but were out gunned and out manned. It was a well coordinated attack of armed men.

BBC News - US consulate in Benghazi 'did not have enough security'
 
Somerville said:
You need to read up on your history a bit.There were certainly "more" than 50 killed in the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, actually 242 died that day. Five minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French paratroopers at their barracks.

The bombs were not in taxis but in large delivery trucks. The marines were expecting a delivery of water and allowed the driver to circle the parking lot without trying to stop him. Once he was lined up with the two gates, the bomber accelerated and drove all the way into the lobby of the barracks where the bomb ignited.


View attachment 67134482
Click to expand...

I do need to read up a bit. I wrote my post from memory knowing that it happened and knowing that Weinberger was actually the one who directed that Marines at the gate would not be locked and loaded. The remainder of the details were fuzzy. I did not, however, change my point.
 
Lowdown-

You are slurring your places. The Benghazi CONSULATE is an outpost of the Tripoli EMBASSY. The Pentagon clearly says EMBASSY and is referring to the Cairo EMBASSY.

Consulates don't have Marine guards as a general rule, they are much smaller complexes compared to the typical US Embassy.

The attackers were well rehearsed and trained, they neutralized the security team which included at least two former SEALs.

Had there been Marines at the consulate then that would have complicated the attack but something tells me the attackers would have brought more RPGs and GPMGs.

I know many on the right want to hang someone for this, and put the blame on President Obama.

However a small complex with a high priority target flanked by a small security team is vulnerable. it says volumes about both security and the attackers that it has been around 30 years since an Ambassador was killed overseas.

Now lets look at the catch phrase- Marine Embassy Guard

Any idea just how many Marines are at an Embassy?

Any idea what their mission is?

To start there are approx 1,000 marines for approx 150 locations. Do the math, that is spreading it pretty thin.

The smallest unit is 6 men.

The PRIMARY job of the Guard is to safeguard classified documents and equipment.

So it maybe stretching reality a bit to think adding 6 Marines to the Consulate staff would have prevented the attack from killing the Ambassador.
 
Deuce said:
And there it is. You have no evidence at all that the report is true in the first place, but you're choosing to believe it because you don't like the president.
Click to expand...

And given Obama's record of lying, doing everything he can to accept responsibility for his actions and policies and spinning every event to make himself look good...the likelihood of him acting in this manner...in this situation...is entirely consistent. Until I see evidence that he is not, yes...this is what I believe.

So...show me something, other than his own suspect words and actions, to change my mind.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I do need to read up a bit. I wrote my post from memory knowing that it happened and knowing that Weinberger was actually the one who directed that Marines at the gate would not be locked and loaded. The remainder of the details were fuzzy. I did not, however, change my point.
Click to expand...


If you are serious about reading the story - here's the link to the official USMC history

US Marines in Lebanon 1982-1984
 
Risky Thicket said:
I do need to read up a bit. I wrote my post from memory knowing that it happened and knowing that Weinberger was actually the one who directed that Marines at the gate would not be locked and loaded. The remainder of the details were fuzzy. I did not, however, change my point.
Click to expand...

They weren't locked and loaded, or they didn't have live rounds?
 
apdst said:
They weren't locked and loaded, or they didn't have live rounds?
Click to expand...

Right, they were not locked and loaded. As I remember hearing it they were directed not to carry loaded weapons on the gate. Other than in training I've never been aware of security carrying blanks. What would be the purpose in that? We were never issued blanks and I never considered they existed in our world. Maybe the Marine Corps is different but I'd be extremely surprised to hear it. I never worked embassy duty though I did work high level security. We always carried weapons and our weapons were always loaded, stateside included. I understand that embassy security is different. Ain't no way it would be right to order security to carry unloaded weapons.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
Clownboy-
nice to see you answered for Beaudreaux, who I was addressing for his use of 'clips' instead of magazines.
Click to expand...

Yup, I happen to know and respect him, your jab was inane.

notquiteright said:
I was a grunt in the Army.

Back in my day the M16a1 had a few nicknames, Mattel toy was one of them, I am very much an adult.
Click to expand...

Good on ya, then you should know better to go after someone who served many more years than yourself with unit specific lingo.

notquiteright said:
Like I said, some will go to any length to believe what they want to. No proof the Marines were not 'hot', several vets saying they never stood a guard without ammo and in far less dangerous places.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've heard that quite a bit over the years from folks in the different vets groups I've belonged to. It was one of the consistent complaints during the Clinton years.

notquiteright said:
Nothing this President has done is out of line, what you seem to endorse was the tough line and swaggering cowboy style that created as many problems as MIGHT have been solved. Many wild eyed, bomb them back to the stone age/nuke them all/ whatever ranters here are envoking BushII or even St. Reagan, neither of whom had much success at stopping terrorism.
Click to expand...

Terrorism will NEVER be wiped away completely. It will always be something we have to guard against. It's one of those eternal vigilance items. And yes, a hard line is always required here. AQ cannot deal with hard line, they don't have the people to deal with it. They go where the soft is exposed. And this president is soft.

notquiteright said:
Now because I am quite grown-up let me tell you about president Reagan and 1986 bombing you seem to think pounded Ghaddafi into submission-

(oh FYI he wasn't in the tent when it was bombed so no 'human shield')

1986 Reagan orders the bombing of key sites to include Ghaddafi's tent.

in 1987 Libya is fomenting trouble in Australian held trusts, was caught shipping arms to European terrorists, Jorge Haider got 10 million for more Euro-terror from Iraq and Libya.

The OPM got support in Indonesia

Libya continued to train paramilitary subversive groups from around the world.

Now the nut punch to the USofA-

Lockerbie 1988

Now look at that date, two years AFTER President Reagan 'pounded' Libya. So he didn't stop anything. Libya continued to train terrorists, ship arms, bankroll terrorists, and then finally pull off a massive terrorist attack of a civilian airliner over Scotland.

Reagan overall didn't stop anything, from his ill conceived use of Marines in Lebanon (1983) that cost 241 men their lives to the bombing of Libya that was answered by Pam Am flight # 103.

Nice try at rewriting history... :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not trying near as hard as you are:

The attacks failed to kill Gaddafi. Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped. It was long thought that the call came from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici.[15] However, Italian politician Bettino Craxi was the person who actually warned Gaddafi, according to Giulio Andreotti (the 42nd Prime Minister of Italy) and Abdel Rahman Shalgham (Libya's Foreign Minister from 2000 until 2009 who was at this time Libya's ambassador to Italy).[16]

According to medical staff in the nearby hospital, two dozen people arrived in military uniform and two without uniform. Total Libyan casualties are estimated at 60, including casualties at the bombed airbases. Later among the casualties an infant girl, whose body was shown to American reporters and was claimed to be Gaddafi's recently adopted daughter Hana. However, there was and remains much skepticism over this.[17][18][19][20][21]
Click to expand...
 
Risky Thicket said:
Right, they were not locked and loaded. As I remember hearing it they were directed not to carry loaded weapons on the gate. Other than in training I've never been aware of security carrying blanks. What would be the purpose in that? We were never issued blanks and I never considered they existed in our world. Maybe the Marine Corps is different but I'd be extremely surprised to hear it. I never worked embassy duty though I did work high level security. We always carried weapons and our weapons were always loaded, stateside included. I understand that embassy security is different. Ain't no way it would be right to order security to carry unloaded weapons.
Click to expand...

So, they did have magazines loaded with live rounds, but they didn't have rounds chambered. Is that what you're saying?
 
Wiseone said:
If true it would be terrible, but luckily its not true in the least. Congratulations you've contributed to the disinformation and lies that dominate our information stream.

REPORTS: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo **UPDATE** - US Embassy Attack - Fox Nation
Click to expand...

Sorry...but I just don't trust Obama...with his record of lies and spins.

I do agree that we don't really, and won't ever, know, but I think there is some substance to the claim. Marines talk...and then, when their chain of command comes down on them...or threatens to...they'll shut up quick. Obama, the Pentagon, and everyone else in the government will always be quick to stifle that which they don't want known. Heck, there have been reports that the U.S. knew of possible attacks well before the 11th, but of course, Obama denies that.

Obama can't afford to admit any truth, at this point. It would sink his prospects of re-election.

But, hey...you go ahead and believe everything Obama tells you.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry...but I just don't trust Obama...with his record of lies and spins.

I do agree that we don't really, and won't ever, know, but I think there is some substance to the claim. Marines talk...and then, when their chain of command comes down on them...or threatens to...they'll shut up quick. Obama, the Pentagon, and everyone else in the government will always be quick to stifle that which they don't want known. Heck, there have been reports that the U.S. knew of possible attacks well before the 11th, but of course, Obama denies that.

Obama can't afford to admit any truth, at this point. It would sink his prospects of re-election.

But, hey...you go ahead and believe everything Obama tells you.
Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is, you don't have any evidence the Marines weren't caring ammo except for what some blog says, which is is again wrong, but you believe it still may be the case because you feel in your heart that Obama may be lying on this one?
 
Wiseone said:
So what you're telling me is, you don't have any evidence the Marines weren't caring ammo except for what some blog says, which is is again wrong, but you believe it still may be the case because you feel in your heart that Obama may be lying on this one?
Click to expand...

When those "some blogs" are USMC blogs, yes, yes I do believe them over some political Pentagon spokesgoat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom