Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't bailed on anything. Article 15 pointed out in the article that I posted but didn't read all of, that it was the General who gave the order.Even if Panetta had given this order, he shouldn't be fired. He hasn't done anything to be fired over. but he should resign.Yes, he should. But do you think that's gonna happen? Hell no. and it that doesn't happen do you think obama has the balls to fire him? We'll see. I'm betting not.
We will find out who actually gave the order.
boy it didn't take you long to bail from your original statement did it?
Well waddya know -- Affirmative Action in the Coalition Forces. That should be a recruitment slogan and see how well it works.I understand that it was a gesture by the commander, to make all the troops in the place in which Panetta was to appear, be equally unarmed. They couldn't trust the Afghanistanis; so the same condition had to be applied to the Marines.
The fact is there have been a sufficient number of incidents to support the conclusion that 100% of those Afghan troops cannot be trusted. So placing our troops at unnecessary risk is a good enough reason to be rid of the individual who gave the order to disarm those Marines, whether that be Panetta or any subordinate.Thus, a smart move. And, it is likely some Marines or others in the area had weapons. We are trying to TURN the mess over to Afghanis, and they cannot yet be trusted NOT to kill US troops or officials.
As there were Afghanis in the tent, how can they be trusted not a grab a gun from those armed?Well waddya know -- Affirmative Action in the Coalition Forces. That should be a recruitment slogan and see how well it works.I understand that it was a gesture by the commander, to make all the troops in the place in which Panetta was to appear, be equally unarmed. They couldn't trust the Afghanistanis; so the same condition had to be applied to the Marines.
The fact is there have been a sufficient number of incidents to support the conclusion that 100% of those Afghan troops cannot be trusted. So placing our troops at unnecessary risk is a good enough reason to be rid of the individual who gave the order to disarm those Marines, whether that be Panetta or any subordinate.Thus, a smart move. And, it is likely some Marines or others in the area had weapons. We are trying to TURN the mess over to Afghanis, and they cannot yet be trusted NOT to kill US troops or officials.
Agreed that if Panetta made this request something needs to be done about it but your link suggests otherwise.
Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.
The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report.
Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend.
As there were Afghanis in the tent, how can they be trusted not a grab a gun from those armed?Well waddya know -- Affirmative Action in the Coalition Forces. That should be a recruitment slogan and see how well it works.I understand that it was a gesture by the commander, to make all the troops in the place in which Panetta was to appear, be equally unarmed. They couldn't trust the Afghanistanis; so the same condition had to be applied to the Marines.
The fact is there have been a sufficient number of incidents to support the conclusion that 100% of those Afghan troops cannot be trusted. So placing our troops at unnecessary risk is a good enough reason to be rid of the individual who gave the order to disarm those Marines, whether that be Panetta or any subordinate.Thus, a smart move. And, it is likely some Marines or others in the area had weapons. We are trying to TURN the mess over to Afghanis, and they cannot yet be trusted NOT to kill US troops or officials.
Perhaps to prevent an Afghani from grabbing a WEAPON?Agreed that if Panetta made this request something needs to be done about it but your link suggests otherwise.
Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.
The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report.
Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend.
So it was to help Afghani's to feel better, to me that makes it worse.
I am not interested in making Afghans feel better, or having a strategic partnership with them that costs us $50 billion a year, etc.
1) They cannot be trusted, because they do not have a value system that resembles anything post-1200 B.C.
2) They have no oil.
Perhaps to prevent an Afghani from grabbing a WEAPON?Agreed that if Panetta made this request something needs to be done about it but your link suggests otherwise.
So it was to help Afghani's to feel better, to me that makes it worse.
That's right! Forgot about that.I am not interested in making Afghans feel better, or having a strategic partnership with them that costs us $50 billion a year, etc.
1) They cannot be trusted, because they do not have a value system that resembles anything post-1200 B.C.
2) They have no oil.
they have multi-trillion-dollar lithium mines. just saying.
If it's true that Leon Panetta had Marines disarm before being in a room with him, he should resign.
You don't put your desire for personal safety above the honor of the United States Marine Corp.
Story to come, I'm sure.
If it's true that Leon Panetta had Marines disarm before being in a room with him, he should resign.
You don't put your desire for personal safety above the honor of the United States Marine Corp.
Story to come, I'm sure.
I do "Red Fridays". Just a volunteer. I've always supported our men and women in Afghanistan. I don't know who gave the order to disarm the Marines, but I really would like a few minutes with him or her in a sound proof room.
The Van Doos that I've come to know and admire were just losing it this morning big time on various web sites at what a huge huge mother trucking huge insult this was to the men and the women of the Marines.
When I found out the history of the Van Doos way back when they were first going to be deployed holy toledo they are awesome.
So when they say this is the worst diss you could give a Marine. I believe it.
I do some work with CFB Beausejour. With the families. Charities.
Great OP. Bless your soul.
I'd like to say I'm shocked but nothing surprises me about the Obama's Administrations outright contempt and hatred for our culture and institutions
Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.
The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report.
Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend
here is one moron
when was the last time you heard of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying them into buildings?
***************************************************
BUT, the MARINES are not going to "LET" an Afghani take a gun from them..................................
Perhaps to prevent an Afghani from grabbing a WEAPON?
When was the last time you heard of an unarmed Afghani stealing a weapon from an on-duty marine and using it to wipe out important politicians or military heads?
Isn't going to happen.
when was the last time you heard of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying them into buildings?
They thought the samething before 9/11....
Again this is why you don't run policy.
That man made a fortune.
Why then did Gurganus make the decision to DISARM the Marines?when was the last time you heard of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying them into buildings?
***************************************************
BUT, the MARINES are not going to "LET" an Afghani take a gun from them..................................
With a room full of armed Marines, he wouldn't get far if did. It is a silly assumption, to say the least, maybe we should disarm those protecting the President, someone might grab their guns.
Obaaaaaaaaama!!!!!!!!!I'd like to say I'm shocked but nothing surprises me about the Obama's Administrations outright contempt and hatred for our culture and institutions
Is he not responsible for the actions of who he appoints?
