Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

[Politico]

No they just don't want to play troll with you. You don't even care about the question you asked.

Classic answer.
If someone asks a difficult question you don't want to answer, just call them a troll.

In other words - there have been NO actions to defend America but loads of invasions, terrorist attacks and so on.
None were to defend the United states.

Actions, invasions? Funny I thought the question was 'Should U.S. soldiers be armed?' Hmm yes that is exactly what the title says. Then I said you don't care about the question. You insult me then prove my point by ignoring it and going back on a hate America rant.

 

[Indofred]

Afghanistan was invaded because a bunch of Saudis attacked the towers.
Iraq didn't attack America at all.

The terror is from the U.S. military.

I find it ironic that you would sit here and bark at those whom participated in this topic asking them to "report a instance where a US soldier uses weapons to defend the US" when you yourself are making aimless, unsupported posts like this.
Why dont you yourself backup the theory that the Saudis are behind the terror attacks, I would love to see some concrete evidence from you, and no, I don't want links to some documentary, I want you yourself to provide actual statistics and figures.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

There you go. A link to the FBI's list of hijackers - mostly Saudis.
I'm sorry you have no understanding of what you're talking about but I'm happy to try to educate you.
As for Iraq, please explain how they were a threat to the continental United States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Afghanistan was invaded because a bunch of Saudis attacked the towers.
Iraq didn't attack America at all.

The terror is from the U.S. military.

I find it ironic that you would sit here and bark at those whom participated in this topic asking them to "report a instance where a US soldier uses weapons to defend the US" when you yourself are making aimless, unsupported posts like this.
Why dont you yourself backup the theory that the Saudis are behind the terror attacks, I would love to see some concrete evidence from you, and no, I don't want links to some documentary, I want you yourself to provide actual statistics and figures.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

There you go. A link to the FBI's list of hijackers - mostly Saudis.
I'm sorry you have no understanding of what you're talking about but I'm happy to try to educate you.
As for Iraq, please explain how they were a threat to the continental United States.

The Government of Afghanistan was protecting Osama Bin Laden. The leader that ordered the attack in the US on 911. They were asked to turn him over for trial they refused. They were warned what that meant.

You want to ignore that and we all know why. You support terror attacks on the west. And you want to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant material.

Once again Afghanistan was protecting Bin Laden, his organization, they provided financial support, they provided lodging and training facilities for terror attacks that were directed at the US. THAT is an act of War and they payed for it.

As for Iraq, Saddam was given a cease fire in the 1st Gulf war with specific requirements to meet, He chose to ignore those conditions, he chose to mislead the west and his own forces into believing he still had Weapons of mass destruction. He paid for it with his life and the lose of his Government.

 

[Mushroom]

China and Russia are both trying to influence Indonesia but they do it with trade and neither have ever bombed Indonesia.
America has.

I would love to see the reference to that.

Although I do not even know why I am asking, you have yet to reference anything.

 

[bianco]

Why?
Can anyone name an instance of a U.S. soldier firing his weapon to defend the United States of America (Since 1945)?

Tell you what.

When Indonesia disarms it's military, I will consider doing the same for that of the US.

Maybe this thread belongs more in the humor section, because it obviously is just another disguised "attack the US" political thread.

Actually, many of Indonesia's military aircraft were gifted by the United States.
Perhaps you should check into things before you post.

This isn't an attack on the U.S., it is an attack on U.S. foreign policy.

Hopefully the US won't be gifting Indonesia too many planes, ships and military equipment.
I, living in Australia, have no desire to end up like the 200,000 East Timorese people Indonesia tortured, mutilated, then genocided after it invaded East Timor and occupied it, using US weapons...given the green light by Washington [Ford and Kissinger, refer US national archives].

 

[ABikerSailor]

Who cares. They are trained in the use of weapons. The idea that soldiers are disarmed on a military base is asinine. ALL soldiers are qualified to carry. Disarming them just makes it easy for the nutters to kill more.

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

As is true of so many on the Left, Clinton despised the military.


This, from the letter he wrote to Col.Holmes (1969)...


" I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes and the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is dis-service, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Clinton's Draft Avoidance

You DO realize that a lot of people loathed the military in 1969, right? It was because of that little dust up called Viet Nam.

 

[Moonglow]

Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

After all, not one has fired a gun to defend the United states since 1945.

You do need arms to fire weapons....and hands also,,,of course,,,with fingers....and eye(s) to aim

 

[ABikerSailor]

MOre RIGHT WING LIES..for those truly interested in the truth?

1. From your link:
"A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases,...issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton...."

Here, tecy....for you, and for Snopes:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.




2. "Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones."

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times




3. Question for you, tecy:

Who was President in March of 1993?


And this: Is the military part of the executive branch?

C'mon...you can do it.



In the future, be more judicious when you scream "lies".

When I was stationed at Newport RI, I was a member of the Auxiliary Security Force, and as a member, I was patrolling the base, standing guard at the gates (approximately once or twice a week), and every time I was on watch I was armed with a 9mm, and 2 magazines of extra ammo.

No..................the base police aren't the only people to carry weapons on patrol.

And yes................I had to qualify before they would allow me to carry a weapon, which is how I earned my Sharpshooter ribbon.

 

[Mushroom]

No..................the base police aren't the only people to carry weapons on patrol.

And yes................I had to qualify before they would allow me to carry a weapon, which is how I earned my Sharpshooter ribbon.

Actually, quite a few people carry weapons as part of a security detail that are not MPs or SPs of any form. And that is on purpose, for very good reason.

At my first duty station, we had 2 very separate and distinct security forces.

In the Administrative Areas, we had Department of Defense Police. These were cops, had the power to arrest, write tickets, and all of that stuff. They were interested in law enforcement. The heaviest weapon they had were .38s.

Then you had the Marine Security Detachment. We were responsible for all of the gates, and guarding 90% of the base. All ammo areas and high security areas were completely our responsibility. We had no arrest authority, we could not write tickets.

But each of us had an M-1911 (later an M-9), and an M-16. And our heaviest weapons were M-60 machine guns and M-203 grenade launchers (with smoke, HE and pop-up rounds).

Our mission was not to arrest people, it was to stop threats to the station (and especially the places like bunkers). And over the years I operated as an "armed guard" a great many times. Armories, shipments of grenades and ammunition through civilian highways, even guarding 2 locked metal cases full of classified documents.

Those who think that only Police need to be armed have no idea what the military really is, or how it works. But some Corporal-Petty Officer standing Barracks Duty does not generally need a weapon, nor does some schlep guarding the motor pool.

 

[Indofred]

China and Russia are both trying to influence Indonesia but they do it with trade and neither have ever bombed Indonesia.
America has.

I would love to see the reference to that.

Although I do not even know why I am asking, you have yet to reference anything.

Allen Lawrence Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was finally admitted by the CIA after an American pilot was shot down in an American aircraft whilst carrying out a trerrorist rain against a country you were not, and never have been, at war with.

Reference that!

 

[Indofred]

Tell you what.

When Indonesia disarms it's military, I will consider doing the same for that of the US.

Maybe this thread belongs more in the humor section, because it obviously is just another disguised "attack the US" political thread.

Actually, many of Indonesia's military aircraft were gifted by the United States.
Perhaps you should check into things before you post.

This isn't an attack on the U.S., it is an attack on U.S. foreign policy.

Hopefully the US won't be gifting Indonesia too many planes, ships and military equipment.
I, living in Australia, have no desire to end up like the 200,000 East Timorese people Indonesia tortured, mutilated, then genocided after it invaded East Timor and occupied it, using US weapons...given the green light by Washington [Ford and Kissinger, refer US national archives].

Yes, Indonesia had a dictator installed by the United States.
First, you bombed civilians, then you sponsored yet another pet dictator.
Luckily, he was tossed out and democracy flourished in Indonesia.
This is a new democracy so has its problems but, in general, it's working out.
In fact, despite the American sponsored dictatorship of old, there's a free election taking place tomorrow.

By the way, as you're so concerned about the people of tim tim, perhaps you'd like to denounce the terrible treatment of the native population of Australia by the white invaders.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mushroom]

Allen Lawrence Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was finally admitted by the CIA after an American pilot was shot down in an American aircraft whilst carrying out a trerrorist rain against a country you were not, and never have been, at war with.

Reference that!

Come on, really?

You are going to try and use this? Combat during a civil war?

 

[Indofred]

Anyway, back to the thread.
Since American's armed forces have not fired a single round in defence of the United states since 1945, I suggest:
All of America's armed forces be disarmed unless:

They're training
Someone starts a war against you.

American military history shows a terrible misuse of power.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyway, back to the thread.
Since American's armed forces have not fired a single round in defence of the United states since 1945, I suggest:
All of America's armed forces be disarmed unless:

They're training
Someone starts a war against you.

American military history shows a terrible misuse of power.

Korea in 50 to 53 was a SANCTIONED UN conflict. I guess you aren't aware of History are you. As for Vietnam the US was opposed to all Communist aggression and went to South Vietnam AFTER the North continued to attack it.In 67 the supposed rebels of South Vietnam were destroyed. The South from then on was subject to continued attacks by North Vietnamese regulars smuggled into the South pretending to be rebels. And in 75 when South Vietnam fell it did so to an INVASION of 25 Divisions from North Vietnam.

Grenada was sanctioned by the South and central America council as Cuba was taking over the Country illegally.

Panama was a US attack on a drug kingpin masquerading as a leader of a Country. And was initiated after that drug kingpin MURDERED an American Service man and kidnapped his family.

First Gulf War was sanctioned by the Arab league. In fact parts of the league provided armed troops to assist in the ousting of Iraq from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia allowed all those foreign troops on her soil to help Kuwait.

All the actions since WW2 have been direct actions involving US national Security and have for the most part been at the request of Host Governments.

 

[Indofred]

Allen Lawrence Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was finally admitted by the CIA after an American pilot was shot down in an American aircraft whilst carrying out a trerrorist rain against a country you were not, and never have been, at war with.

Reference that!

Come on, really?

You are going to try and use this? Combat during a civil war?

What civil war?
Civil unrest finally removed the U.S. sponsored dictator but there was no civil war.
There were American terrorist strikes against Indonesia.

 

[Mushroom]

What civil war?
Civil unrest finally removed the U.S. sponsored dictator but there was no civil war.
There were American terrorist strikes against Indonesia.

Uhhh, you are aware this was 1958, right? I mean, that was what your own reference said.

And the leader from 1945-1967 was the same man, Sukarno. A communist who was a dictator for 22 years, including 13 years before this incident, and 9 years afterwards!

So tell us, who was this "US sponsored dictator" then, and when was he removed? Because the only one I see answered to the Soviet Union, and was not removed for almost a decade.

Wow, you really do not have a clue, do you? I am actually getting rather bored of your fantastic claims, and almost complete inability to validate pretty much anything you claim.

So please, who was this dictator in 1958, and how was he removed? Because your claims are in complete contradiction of history.

Unless there is some other "Indonesia" that you only have in your head.

 

[Politico]

Anyway, back to the thread.
Since American's armed forces have not fired a single round in defence of the United states since 1945, I suggest:
All of America's armed forces be disarmed unless:

They're training
Someone starts a war against you.

American military history shows a terrible misuse of power.

How about we put this to bed. You gave your opinion fauxiner...No....and fuck off.

 

[Indofred]

What civil war?
Civil unrest finally removed the U.S. sponsored dictator but there was no civil war.
There were American terrorist strikes against Indonesia.

Uhhh, you are aware this was 1958, right? I mean, that was what your own reference said.

And the leader from 1945-1967 was the same man, Sukarno. A communist who was a dictator for 22 years, including 13 years before this incident, and 9 years afterwards!

So tell us, who was this "US sponsored dictator" then, and when was he removed? Because the only one I see answered to the Soviet Union, and was not removed for almost a decade.

Wow, you really do not have a clue, do you? I am actually getting rather bored of your fantastic claims, and almost complete inability to validate pretty much anything you claim.

So please, who was this dictator in 1958, and how was he removed? Because your claims are in complete contradiction of history.

Unless there is some other "Indonesia" that you only have in your head.

At least you don't deny the American terrorist attacks against Indonesia.

I said, America used terrorist attacks and installed their pet dictator.
I didn't say these events followed each other directly.
The uprising was a very limited action, hardly a civil war, but America bombed civilians anyway because they wanted rid of the Indonesian government of the time.
Suharto eventually took power after an apparent group of murders committed by communists.
He was America's pet.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB242/19700526_memcon.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/world/asia/28suharto.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Whether it was those forces or his timing, good fortune came to him. Just as the United States was becoming embroiled in Vietnam, he stood as a bulwark against Communism in Asia. The United States rewarded him with a foreign aid program that eventually amounted to more than $4 billion a year. In addition, a consortium of Western countries and Japan established an aid program that in 1994 alone totaled almost $5 billion.

In doing so, the United States, along with much of the rest of the world, showed a willingness to overlook the corruption, favoritism and violations of human rights, including the disappearance of opposition politicians, that came to characterize Mr. Suharto’s rule.

Luckily, despite America's efforts to keep their pet in power, the Indonesian people tossed him out and installed the democracy that America had kept from their reach.

America, the supposed home of freedom and democracy, should be ashamed of their actions in Indonesia; both political and terrorist.

However, you are shielded from this by lack of education and indoctrination to a creed that says America can do no wrong.
When I mentioned America's terrorist attacks, no one believes it until you post damning evidence, then they defend it as military action.
Please post a link to the declaration of war between Indonesia and America.
Of course, you can't because America, the world's worst terrorist nation, will never admit to anything and, when they're caught red handed, never stand their terrorists in court to face justice for their crimes.
They can't because that would mean admitting - America is a terrorist sponsor and terrorist nation.

You see it all the time, but no one will ever allow the truth to enter their heads.

 

[Mushroom]

At least you don't deny the American terrorist attacks against Indonesia.

Look, I am tired of your slander and bullshit claims and then switching around to something totally different.

Now you need to either confirm something you had claimed, or basically STFU and admit you are making crap up as you go along. This making lies, getting them busted then making more lies is simply pathetic.

You said very clearly that the government at the time was led by a US puppet, and that it was rightfully overthrown. SO what was the government, who was leading it, and when was it overthrown?

Sorry, no more lies and crap, either find the proof to validate your earlier claims, or admit you were making everything up.

 

[Indofred]

At least you don't deny the American terrorist attacks against Indonesia.

Look, I am tired of your slander and bullshit claims and then switching around to something totally different.

Now you need to either confirm something you had claimed, or basically STFU and admit you are making crap up as you go along. This making lies, getting them busted then making more lies is simply pathetic.

Do you deny a CIA pilot, on a terrorist mission, was shot down and captured in Indonesia?
Do you further deny, this criminal was never punished for the murders he committed?
In fact, he was given another job, being a terrorist in another part of the world.

Indonesia

The Evening Independent - Google News Archive Search

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II - William Blum - Google Books

The terrorist group, you know as the CIA, even bombed civilians who were on their way to church.

In the face of such damning evidence, please admit the American government were a terrorist group, entering a conflict that was nothing to do with them and murdering civilians.

EDIT - As for American backed dictators - I posted links and quotes above.

Still, I don't suppose you will because, in the eyes of the indoctrinated, America can do no wrong.