OT, soldiers carrying loaded weapsons.

[micky]

OT, soldiers carrying loaded weapons.

In the past 2 or 3 days, American troops in Afghanistan have been ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times while on base ,

What would the previous situiation have been?

That they didn't carry weapons at all, or that they carried unloaded weapons?

And what base is referrred to? It sounds like it is the American bases that are referred to, but maybe that part is written badly.

Where have the American killed in the last several incidents there, may they rest in peace, been killed, on American bases or Afghani?

I thought that on an American base the only ones carrying weapons were the guards at the gate and the perimeter or in front of some high mucky-muck's office, soldiers leaving or returning to the base, those going to the firing range to practice, those appearing for a few minutes during (daily?) inpection by their commanding officer, and a small number of others for misc. reasons, like going to the quartermaster to get a replacement part.

And that when American military visited a foreign base, like an Afghani base in Afghanistan, again, the miliarty guard would carry weapons but officers carried no more than a side arm, if that, and privates and NCOs brought just to carry things would not be armed at all.

So my impression of the change in orders was that they should carry weapons when they haven't been, not that they should load weapsons they are already carrying. Comments?

[Don Rumsfeld]

We should have never gone to "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sorry that I convinced George that such invasions were necessary (but really, it wasn't hard - the guy is such an idiot).

But playing "stratego" with a real army gives you a total rush. Better than any drug.

And when you pair up someone like me with Cheney, look out. We can talk each other into pulling off the most outrageous "regime-change" you can think of.

[HeyBub]

Amazingly, the massacre last year at Ft Hood, one of the largest military installations in the world, took place in a "gun free" zone.

[Jim Elbrecht]

Probably depends on where they were. In VN there were bases where weapons were checked at the gate- and others where you just left your magazine.

-snip-

At 2 of the 3 the bases I was at [USMC- VN 1969-70] we always had a couple magazines on our person, even in the chow line. Regulations went back and forth over whether those magazines could be *in* the weapon. The 3rd base was weapons only-- in case of attack, the armory would deliver ammo to the bunkers. [I don't think that ever happened-- I don't even remember where the bunkers were on that base]

When we were on an ARVN base we damn sure carried our loaded weapons.

Don't know- any variation is possible.

Jim

[recyclebinned]

We should all be carrying weapons when we go to a school, university, mall or movie theater.

[micky]

These changes came from military higher-ups, or the civilans at DOD, or probably both?

Uh-huh.

Okay. Thanks. So I can't take issue with the other poster in the other group. He was quoting someone who used the words "in other words" and it's one thing when one explain what one said himself in other words. But I'm always suspiciious when B takes C's words and rephrases them "in other words". Often the rephrasing means nothing like what C really said.

But just as well, I'm not in the mood for a fight.

It's interesting that you know so much more about this than Donald Rumsfeld.

[Stormin Mormon]

Now, that's best idea I've heard in ages.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

We should all be carrying weapons when we go to a school, university, mall or movie theater.

[Stormin Mormon]

With the present gun hating admin, it's a wonder that any guns are still in military hands. OTOH, they sure love armed czars, agents, and workers like TSA.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

In the past 2 or 3 days, American troops in Afghanistan have been ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times while on base ,

What would the previous situiation have been?

That they didn't carry weapons at all, or that they carried unloaded weapons?

And what base is referrred to? It sounds like it is the American bases that are referred to, but maybe that part is written badly.

Where have the American killed in the last several incidents there, may they rest in peace, been killed, on American bases or Afghani?

I thought that on an American base the only ones carrying weapons were the guards at the gate and the perimeter or in front of some high mucky-muck's office, soldiers leaving or returning to the base, those going to the firing range to practice, those appearing for a few minutes during (daily?) inpection by their commanding officer, and a small number of others for misc. reasons, like going to the quartermaster to get a replacement part.

And that when American military visited a foreign base, like an Afghani base in Afghanistan, again, the miliarty guard would carry weapons but officers carried no more than a side arm, if that, and privates and NCOs brought just to carry things would not be armed at all.

So my impression of the change in orders was that they should carry weapons when they haven't been, not that they should load weapsons they are already carrying. Comments?

[harryagain]

It is a further sign that America has lost the war and your (republican) leaders are sub-intelligent. But you have to be stupid to be republican.

[Jim Elbrecht]

The Colonel on my base had the final say. Generals made decisions for bases further in the rear. DOD might have had *some* policy.

-snip-

But I've also got to point out that part of our failure in VN was never trying to understand/respect the home team. Those of us who worked directly with small groups had a lot more respect for their capabilities than 'common knowledge'. I think we are doing much better at that these days--- but I'm not there- so who knows.

-snip-

I don't know if I do-- but in his defense- Rummy was a Naval Aviator in peacetime. I had the advantage of living the dream for a year. all the book learning in the world, and all the memos that cross your desk can't replace a little on-the-ground experience.

Jim

[Root]

harryagain used improper usenet message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:

Agreed.

Or be a born-again evangelical bible-thumper (which is another way to say - stupid).

How do all you conservative christians feel about the foreign policy meddling that you've been doing in the middle-east over the past 12 years?

Do you know it's resulted in the death and persecution of thousands of eastern-orthodox christians at the hands of moozlems that have been unleashed as a result of your "wars" ?

[Stormin Mormon]

Speaking only for myself, I think that meddling in the midlde east is generally unwise. They have been fighting each other for thousands of years. We can't change that. We'd do a lot better to focuss on local issues such as poverty at home, and do some work on reducing government interference in business.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

How do all you conservative christians feel about the foreign policy meddling that you've been doing in the middle-east over the past 12 years?

[micky]

A thoughtful answer. Thanks.

Good to know, but the Donald Rumsfield I meant was the first guy to reply to my question. Though I know many Cabinet secretaries post here, I doubt it's the same one you mean.

[DerbyDad03]

Since no one else has actually answered your question with any authority, I don't feel bad tossing out my opinion of what may been the cause of the policy change:

4th paragraph

[Atila Iskander]

What a crock The muzzies have been "unleashed" since the time of Mohammed

[G. Morgan]

Yup. That's exactly what I think it's related to.

[Stormin Mormon]

I heard something like that, on the radio.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

Since no one else has actually answered your question with any authority, I don't feel bad tossing out my opinion of what may been the cause of the policy change:

4th paragraph

[micky]

Thanks. Yes, that's what it's related to.

[Jim Elbrecht]

-snip-

It's sad that there are no Iraq/Afghan vets or people close enough to them to ask that post here on this group.

Shows, in part, what a small group they are-- and how big a sacrifice they've been making for the past decade.

Jim

[micky]

Yes, indeed.

It's also probaboly because they're too young to post here.. Most of the people here and other ngs are over 50, rarely under 30, because almost no one makes a profit on Usenet, no one advertises Usenet, and most posters go to web forums for some reason, even though I once posted a list of 15 reasons why Usenet was better.

We really should tell people about Usenet, and how much better it is.

For one thing, there is no way to communicate directly with someone on a webforum, unless he's still reading it. But, among others, I still have the same email address I used 18 or 20 years ago on Usenet, and if anyone sees an old post and wants to know how it turned out, etc. they can email. me.