- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because its unprecedented thats why. BTW, I'm not partisan hack if you care to read some of my other posts.
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.
Because its unprecedented thats why. BTW, I'm not partisan hack if you care to read some of my other posts.
The bold happens a lot btw
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.
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.
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.
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'?
Good to see you have respect for your officers.
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.
ANY time you ask marines to disarm for a political gathering in theater it is 'unreasonable'. Lets start with...DISARM.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.
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 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 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.
MTP is a good guy. If you don't already know that, go do your ****ing homework.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?