Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech
US soldiers were asked to disarm during a speech by Leon Panetta, the American defence secretary, in a sign of grown concern over spates of seemingly random violence in Afghanistan.
A large security detail surrounds Leon Panetta during his visit to Afghanistan. Nato's forces have been seeking to step up the vetting of the thousands of Afghans who work on military bases Photo: GETTY
9:06PM GMT 14 Mar 2012Less than a week after a US staff sergeant allegedly massacred 16 civilians in Kandahar, American soldiers were banned from bringing guns into a talk by Mr Panetta at a base in Helmand province.Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told "something had come to light" and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols."Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy – we just adjust," said the sergeant who was told to clear the hall of weapons.Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all."You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," he told the New York Times, insisting that the decision was unrelated to Sunday's killings. "This is not a big deal."
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Somebody got itchy?
Rarely do I blog back to back on the same topic but these people are really pissing me off. Who the hell do they think they are treating our troops this way? The entire unit should have refused to disarm and simply left the area before allowing themselves to be subjected to such lunacy. I am so sick of our troops being used as backdrops for these disingenuous areseholes to politic in front of, while all the while under cutting our military at every opportunity to serve the interests of their socialist masters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Another consideration is that maybe the Sec of Def and others really are uncertain who they can actually trust anymore. I heard Alex Jones getting really worked up over the Sec of Def recent statments as to international permissions instead of congressional permissions. He (Alex) interviewed with active duty personnel and kept shouting "where are you!" And "I'm here risking MY life!" What I mean is, maybe someone thinks some of our own troops might take "support and defend the Consititution against all enemies" to mean anyone who seems to subvert the Constitution. I'm not an advocate of that because I don't think a Christian has any business doing something like that. I prefer to pray and watch God do great and mighty things instead. This explanation I've given was not the publicly provided explanation, but since when has the public explanation ever consistently been the true explanation anyway with these folks?
Also, another side of the coin was present on the tail end of an article from www.onenewsnow.com and that portion is as follows:
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) is senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council. He believes the president should be able to act when the national security of the nation is at risk.
"The question is whether or not the national security of the nation was at risk in the case of Libya -- I don't believe it was. And certainly in the case of Syria, which I don't believe it is either," says the Pentagon advisor. "So if the president proceeds and uses the military -- which wouldn't surprise me -- I think that it clearly is a violation of the intent of what the Constitution says."
Maginnis says it is unfortunate that over the past 30-plus years, numerous military operations have been conducted without the prior notification of Congress.
"I don't think [President Ronald] Reagan, when he sent jets into Libya to bomb Gadhafi's palaces, asked permission of Congress or probably consulted them after the fact," he notes. "So it cuts both ways politically."
A subsequent CNN report quotes a defense official who, in attempting to clarify Panetta's comments, stated: "He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body."
From: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1557170
That does take a little of the "billow out of the sails" for me, but the damage has been done and good luck trying to undo it with those initial remarks by Panetta. That's like trying to recall a sneeze. He should have stumbling over himself instead to make sure the congress understood emphatically that congress has the say. I don't know, but in light of all the things that have taken place in the last couple of decades and even beyond that, we need to figure out how to keep on scaling back Presidential and Executive powers.
We went through fourteen years of Vietnam and never had our troops taking pot shots at visiting leaders. What has changed? What has changed is the lack of leadership and the intentional victimization of our kids in combat. We never willingly sacrificed our troops in Vietnam for politics. We kept them from winning, but we never just sent them out with their hands tied to be sacrificed for religious politics like we are doing now.,
What this incident demonstrates to me is the metastasized level that egalitarianism has reached with this administration.
Please don't forget, Janet Napolitano and others in this administration are on record as considering our military veterans and others as potential enemies to this (their) government. Along with Christians and present and former law enforcement and anyone else who might potentially disagree with the egalitarian socialist worldly view of Obama and the rest.
What was done with those Marines in Afghanistan wasn't done for Panetta's safety. What was done was done was done to demonstrate contrition and subservience to the Afghanis. In effect, another demonstration of Barack Obama's version of America bowing to another Muslim country and their desires to humiliate and demean the United States in front of the world.
I guess most Americans have forgotten that we went to war there to eradicate a militant wing of Islam that had on 9/11 demonstrated it's hell bent desire to destroy us.
We owe these people nothing, especially when it can be documented that they conspire with our enemies to destroy us. That makes them our enemies IMO and as such they should be destroyed. Give those desirous of fleeing ample opportunity to run, then absolutely level that shit hole of a country. Then do the same to any other country that harbors them or supports them on any level. Do that and the war on terror will come to a very quick ending.
As for Panetta's bowing to the UN for permission? That is nothing less than one more bow to Islam by Obama. And make no mistake, the Muslims are perfectly aware of the connotations being expressed by these actions.
Obama and those like him have absolutely no compunction in allowing America to be exposed to either ridicule or attack.
And when the next big attack on America comes, I sincerely hope the majority of Americans remember exactly who was responsible for it.
Post a Comment