• 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

Clownboy-
While Mattel Toy maybe somewhat specific at no time has any unit since the M1 Garand referred to what gets inserted into the weapon as a 'clip', focus please.

Do you call the 20 and 30 round magazines 'clips'?

Name some names, places, Embassies where Marine Guards were unarmed or did not carry ammo while on duty- vague 'I heard from a friend of a friend while knockin back quarter beers at the VFW' don't count for much. Rumors are not worth the piss afterwards.

Hardline? Like Reagan did in Lebanon? What is hardline anyways- nuke Kabul? Problem with 'hardline' is whatever is done isn't 'hardline' enough for some. al-Queera is getting drone attacks across the Middle East, pretty damn hardline to me.

Now when it comes to President Reagan and Ghaddafi you missed your own point to dwell on highly slanted versions of what happened the night of the bombing. Fact is there was no human shield as many targets were hit, civilian losses low so no human shields, The whole story that Ghaddafi was tipped off are suspect at best and the whole point of a human shield is to let everyone know you have one, that is what Saddam did with the British folks, and not what Ghaddafi did. It wasn't a human shield but family members in his tent.

But you duck YOUR major point that is 120% false-

Reagan 'pounding' Libya causing a few deaths in 1986, didn't stop terrorism from Libya- Lockerbie was 2 years later!

So your assertion of a hardline suppresses terrorism is shown to be flawed by your very own example. Look what it took to attack Libya and kill 60 some people vs what it took for Libyan agents to down Pan Am #103 killing 270 people.

Reagan didn't suppress terrorism, he just escalated the violence from 3 killed in a Disco to 270 in Scotland.

takes more than killing to stop terrorism, and the 'take a hardline' crowd never is satisfied because no matter how many get killed it is never hardline enough unless your man is sitting in the Oval Office.

Reagan blowing up a tent was seen as hardline, Clinton's tent as wussy... :roll:
 
clownboy said:
When those "some blogs" are USMC blogs, yes, yes I do believe them over some political Pentagon spokesgoat.
Click to expand...

Why? You'll take the word of a blog article without an author or any source material, over the Pentagon?

NightWatch 20120913 - KGS

That is the original source up there, and if I'm going to believe that Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammo I'm going to need more than some anonymous sourceless writing on the internet. You should demand facts before just picking whats true and false based on what you wish reality to be, otherwise you're just being willfully ignorant.
 
apdst said:
So, they did have magazines loaded with live rounds, but they didn't have rounds chambered. Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

This may come as a surprise to you, but I wasn't there. They were not able to fire at the vehicles that breached the gate. Down the chain of command from SECDEF Weinberger was an order that Marine guards at the gate would not have loaded weapons. How that was implemented at the gate I do not know. I have always taken the information to mean that the guards did not have magazines loaded into their weapons. Obviously then, no rounds were chambered.

It's obvious you are driving a point because it happened on Reagan's watch and you have trouble accepting it. Make your point.
 
notquiteright said:
Clownboy-
While Mattel Toy maybe somewhat specific at no time has any unit since the M1 Garand referred to what gets inserted into the weapon as a 'clip', focus please.

Do you call the 20 and 30 round magazines 'clips'?
Click to expand...

Then you never served in Vietnam. We used clip, magazine and mag. Just checked with my uncle who served in Korea, Vietnam and parts all over the world since, he's heard all used.

notquiteright said:
Name some names, places, Embassies where Marine Guards were unarmed or did not carry ammo while on duty- vague 'I heard from a friend of a friend while knockin back quarter beers at the VFW' don't count for much. Rumors are not worth the piss afterwards.
Click to expand...

I'll ask, my next meeting with the support group is at the end of the month. And btw, even the spokeweenies for the Pentagon said that was up to the Ambassador, so obviously it is an option.

notquiteright said:
Hardline? Like Reagan did in Lebanon? What is hardline anyways- nuke Kabul? Problem with 'hardline' is whatever is done isn't 'hardline' enough for some. al-Queera is getting drone attacks across the Middle East, pretty damn hardline to me.

Now when it comes to President Reagan and Ghaddafi you missed your own point to dwell on highly slanted versions of what happened the night of the bombing. Fact is there was no human shield as many targets were hit, civilian losses low so no human shields, The whole story that Ghaddafi was tipped off are suspect at best and the whole point of a human shield is to let everyone know you have one, that is what Saddam did with the British folks, and not what Ghaddafi did. It wasn't a human shield but family members in his tent.

But you duck YOUR major point that is 120% false-

Reagan 'pounding' Libya causing a few deaths in 1986, didn't stop terrorism from Libya- Lockerbie was 2 years later!

So your assertion of a hardline suppresses terrorism is shown to be flawed by your very own example. Look what it took to attack Libya and kill 60 some people vs what it took for Libyan agents to down Pan Am #103 killing 270 people.

Reagan didn't suppress terrorism, he just escalated the violence from 3 killed in a Disco to 270 in Scotland.

takes more than killing to stop terrorism, and the 'take a hardline' crowd never is satisfied because no matter how many get killed it is never hardline enough unless your man is sitting in the Oval Office.

Reagan blowing up a tent was seen as hardline, Clinton's tent as wussy... :roll:
Click to expand...

I will cede that the Reagan bombings only had the effect of quieting Ghaddafi in the world press and did not cease his terrorist actions.

As for the hard line thing, that's perception (a staple for American presidents). The American people and the world must perceive they are hard line and not a push over.
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I think I've made my point.
 
Clown-
Thinking you didn't serve in any sort of a combat unit as Mattel toy comes straight from there... these days it is mouse gun or musket when referring to the older M16 series vs the M4 types.

You would have done beaucoup push-ups for referring to the 20 round mag as a clip in training, it would have been beaten out of your had because clips are not magazines and telling your squad leader you are down to your last clip means you ran through ALL your ammo to include the bandoleer. Maybe clerks were not so strict.

Combat vets don't use right as affirmative either, right is a direction- check, affirm, roger that, keyrect mean 'right'. Do you know what humping alice means? how about humping the Pric? Ever daisy chained some frags?

Interesting you claim to have used clip for mag.

Your support group... they were Marine Embassy Guards?

You sound like those guys who believe bloggers claiming 9-11 was an inside job and refuse to believe official reports because it is from the lying gubmint... :roll:

No Sir, again you are very biased on what is a staple of American Presidents. Guiding the nation in peace and prosperity is what is the Presidential staple. Reagan, Bush, and BushII have shown us just how badly being the swaggering cowboy or going into endless commitments in failed states turns out for the nation.

Firm but fair, not hardline is more like it.

Now one more thing when you go to your support group-

ask them how many other Marines were with them manning the Embassy... Ya'll seem to think an entire Expeditionary Force mans each and every outpost we have around the world...
 
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...

And you believe the blog is wrong because Obama tells you so.
 
Mycroft said:
And you believe the blog is wrong because Obama tells you so.
Click to expand...

Because the Pentagon told me so, also because the blog HAS NO SOURCE. The Pentagon is a source of authority to speak on the matters of the military, the reason should be self evident I hope. The blog has no author, no contact information for questions, no quotes from any individuals, no links or references to outside material, etc... The question of who to believe should be obvious.

If its shown that the Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammo within the embassy in Cairo itself I would totally agree that the Ambassador made a serious mistake in giving that direction, but nothing supports that assertion except some anonymous writing on the internet
 
Wiseone said:
Because the Pentagon told me so, also because the blog HAS NO SOURCE. The Pentagon is a source of authority to speak on the matters of the military, the reason should be self evident I hope. The blog has no author, no contact information for questions, no quotes from any individuals, no links or references to outside material, etc... The question of who to believe should be obvious.

If its shown that the Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammo within the embassy in Cairo itself I would totally agree that the Ambassador made a serious mistake in giving that direction, but nothing supports that assertion except some anonymous writing on the internet
Click to expand...

The Pentagon takes its orders from the Commander-In-Chief...you know that habitual liar named Obama.

Why should I trust anything the Pentagon says?
 
Mycroft said:
The Pentagon takes its orders from the Commander-In-Chief...you know that habitual liar named Obama.

Why should I trust anything the Pentagon says?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support your position that Marines weren't allowed to carry ammo? No.
Do you have any evidence Obama is manipulating what the Pentagon is saying? No
End of story.

Still believe what your saying? Congratulations you've just entered the realm of conspiracy theories where facts have no meaning and evidence and proof aren't needed because the lack of proof is proof itself. Hell perhaps you even believe I'm arguing against you because being a member of the military I'm also under Obama's authority. Hell it says right on my commission that I serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
 
Wiseone said:
Do you have any evidence to support your position that Marines weren't allowed to carry ammo? No.
Do you have any evidence Obama is manipulating what the Pentagon is saying? No
End of story.

Still believe what your saying? Congratulations you've just entered the realm of conspiracy theories where facts have no meaning and evidence and proof aren't needed because the lack of proof is proof itself. Hell perhaps you even believe I'm arguing against you because being a member of the military I'm also under Obama's authority. Hell it says right on my commission that I serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Dude, not to minimize your position (whatever that may be) in the military, I seriously doubt you are at a level at which you are receiving direct orders from the President. You probably don't need to worry much about arguing for or against Obama.
 
PeteEU said:
because you have for the last decade under Bush? Because you are an American patriot?
Click to expand...

Actually, under Bush I trusted what Bush said and commended the Pentagon for their strategies in fighting wars. I don't recall the Pentagon running interference for a lying Bush.
 
In addition to denying that others in this forum may have opinions as valid as his own, the poster also reveals that he hasn't bothered to read anything not approved by Roger Ailes

Mycroft said:
Actually, under Bush I trusted what Bush said and commended the Pentagon for their strategies in fighting wars. I don't recall the Pentagon running interference for a lying Bush.
Click to expand...

Trusting what Bush said has been shown to be a losing proposition.

The DoD does fight our enemies with the best strategies allowed by their lords and masters. To think that the top guys in the Pentagon were in favour of attacking Iraq is laughably absurd BUT once they had received the orders, America's military did the best job they could do given the thinking exemplified by Rumsfeld's statements

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, asked Sec of Defense Rumsfeld a question: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"
Rumsfeld's answer. "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up." Was seen by many as denigrating the sacrifices of the US military by seemingly telling this soldier and his comrades that any failures were partially their fault because they weren't the army that Rumsfeld wanted.

then there was the infamous, known unknowns statement
[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Click to expand...

and that was the man George W Bush chose to run the DoD
 
Somerville said:
In addition to denying that others in this forum may have opinions as valid as his own, the poster also reveals that he hasn't bothered to read anything not approved by Roger Ailes



Trusting what Bush said has been shown to be a losing proposition.

The DoD does fight our enemies with the best strategies allowed by their lords and masters. To think that the top guys in the Pentagon were in favour of attacking Iraq is laughably absurd BUT once they had received the orders, America's military did the best job they could do given the thinking exemplified by Rumsfeld's statements

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, asked Sec of Defense Rumsfeld a question: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"
Rumsfeld's answer. "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up." Was seen by many as denigrating the sacrifices of the US military by seemingly telling this soldier and his comrades that any failures were partially their fault because they weren't the army that Rumsfeld wanted.

then there was the infamous, known unknowns statement


and that was the man George W Bush chose to run the DoD
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld was correct in both quotes, but that has nothing to do with my statement. It's simply your opinion of Rumsfeld...and Bush by extension. You've made no mention of the Pentagon running interference for a lying Bush.

Seems to me your whole post was a wasted, irrelevant bunch of liber...er, excuse me, socialist...blather.
 
Mycroft said:
Rumsfeld was correct in both quotes, but that has nothing to do with my statement. It's simply your opinion of Rumsfeld...and Bush by extension. You've made no mention of the Pentagon running interference for a lying Bush.

Seems to me your whole post was a wasted, irrelevant bunch of liber...er, excuse me, socialist...blather.
Click to expand...

Your entire reason for believing something with no source or supporting material is because of your opinion of Obama. Now you are saying this this guy's argument isn't valid because its just an opinion, which is it man? Are opinions valid or not valid? Or let me guess, your opinions can be used in arguments while other people's opinions can't because they are right? Hypocrite.
 
Wiggen said:
When hearing stories like this, it's always a good idea to go off half-cocked before actually getting the true story from the military. It makes righteous indignation so much easier.
Click to expand...

But that requires reasonableness and capacity to research.

You know full well someone like Mycroft who stated "I'm entirely against the Democrat Party" is not going to do that.
 
Wiseone said:
Why? You'll take the word of a blog article without an author or any source material, over the Pentagon?

NightWatch 20120913 - KGS

That is the original source up there, and if I'm going to believe that Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammo I'm going to need more than some anonymous sourceless writing on the internet. You should demand facts before just picking whats true and false based on what you wish reality to be, otherwise you're just being willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

At this point, the people who irrationally hate Obama don't give a **** about facts. Notice how they're all up on a source they can't prove wasn't written by a 90 year old white lady from Botswanna.

They will jump on anything and I mean anything these days.

Reminds me of the groups that hated Bush so much that they'd claim anything they found on the internet against Bush was correct. The whole notion of fact sourcing went out the window with them.

It's alarming but funny to see the hardcore partisan hacks like Mycroft do the exact same **** they criticize the hardcore leftist hacks here for.
 
LowDown said:
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'
Click to expand...

Amazing how you suddenly take the BBC as credible.. two way street man.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Amazing how you suddenly take the BBC as credible.. two way street man.
Click to expand...

Nope, just passing it along for what it's worth. The BBC seems to be backing the Pentagon's claim that the guards were armed, just outgunned, (so are you not impressed by how fair and balanced I am today?)

Either way it's a total ****up for the State Department, which by some accounts got plenty of warning that this would happen. Ambassador Rice, FWIW, denies it.

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments - CNN.com

Libyan president: 'No doubt' attack 'preplanned' - POLITICO.com
 
See what happens when they take our ammo away.
 
Wiseone said:
Your entire reason for believing something with no source or supporting material is because of your opinion of Obama. Now you are saying this this guy's argument isn't valid because its just an opinion, which is it man? Are opinions valid or not valid? Or let me guess, your opinions can be used in arguments while other people's opinions can't because they are right? Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

If Somerville had raised an opinion that actually referred to anything I said, I would have given it some consideration. He didn't. So, yeah...his whole diatribe about Rumsfeld is dismissed and disregarded because it's irrelevant to the point to which he was responding. I thought I made that clear in my dismissal.

Evidently you...and the others who "liked" your post...don't understand that.

So it goes.
 
Mycroft said:
If Somerville had raised an opinion that actually referred to anything I said, I would have given it some consideration. He didn't. So, yeah...his whole diatribe about Rumsfeld is dismissed and disregarded because it's irrelevant to the point to which he was responding. I thought I made that clear in my dismissal.

Evidently you...and the others who "liked" your post...don't understand that.

So it goes.
Click to expand...

I think they understand at least that you need a source to back up claims you make before people are going to believe you. That's how facts work you know. "In my opinion" is not good enough dude.
 
Wiseone said:
I think they understand at least that you need a source to back up claims you make before people are going to believe you. That's how facts work you know. "In my opinion" is not good enough dude.
Click to expand...

My opinion is good enough for me. Especially in my own thread.

Trying to rebut my opinion by talking about something unrelated is kind of stupid, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom