Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/12/2005 4:56:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 5:12:40 PM EDT by CRC]
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 4:59:44 PM EDT
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:05:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!



Damn, I did the same thing.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:06:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:06:59 PM EDT
Shit, I did too...edit the poll
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:07:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!

damn same here.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:08:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
DUH



Thats damn common.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:08:17 PM EDT
Yes they should be armed especially in third world shitholes like Indonesia where the ROP has a large following.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:09:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!



Damn, I did the same thing.



D'OH! Same here...
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:09:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!



same here

they should carry guns......
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:09:41 PM EDT
Darn it, I did too. Read the title and checked no and vote, then recoiled in horror when I read the question!!!!

Can I revote?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:11:26 PM EDT
Didn't your teachers ever tell you to read EVERYTHING closely??

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:12:35 PM EDT
NO! There should never be a place that our troops are to go that they are not armed and ready. PERIOD!!!
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:20:43 PM EDT
Troops should NEVER be unarmed.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:29:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Didn't your teachers ever tell you to read EVERYTHING closely??




Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:34:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Didn't your teachers ever tell you to read EVERYTHING closely??






My teachers also told me that George H Bush and GWB were the antichrist and Mr. Clinton was the second coming of Christ. I didn't listen to them.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:49:55 PM EDT
Hell I was disarmed throughout the Gulf war (the first one) Two days aftre arriving in the gulf we stored our rifles in a Armory they built on our base in Bahrain. I never saw my M16 after that day.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:52:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
God dammit, I voted no because the thread title and the poll title are asking different questions!


+1
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 5:52:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 5:53:21 PM EDT by The_Macallan]


Sometimes (especially in the turd-world) using a gun is the most "humanitarian" thing our troops could ever do for the savages.


Link Posted: 1/12/2005 6:54:17 PM EDT
Yes, and they should also be issued as much ammo as they want for any such missions.

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 6:57:21 PM EDT
Im think our guys have real security concerns and if not all, at least 1:5 should be armed (maybe NCO and above?)
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:08:13 PM EDT
I checked 'Not Sure' because it depends on the mission.

3rd world shithole where safety is in doubt? Damned straight!

Some civilized place where there's little security issue? Maybe a few guys should pack handguns. I know that if I were doing relief work in some secure area, having an M-16 across my back would be a PITA.

I think this should be based ENTIRELY on troop safety, and politics be damned!
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:10:09 PM EDT
The arming of the troops is necessary for the security of the goods and services, plus men who are delivering the aid in a foreign land under hostile conditions.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:51:39 PM EDT
I voted no. BUT, the real issue is if the US commanding officer decides they don't need to be armed or it is a good idea then go ahead and disarm them.

But at NO TIME should they be disarmed based on orders outside their chain of command.

Now, uncerstand I am a big proponent of helping victims of the tsunami. I have even told people on this site they are total assholes for their comments regarding this issue.

But, we offer free assistance. If it is in the form of out armed forces get over it. If they are in an area that is hostile they WILL be armed if I am in command.

But they WILL aid the victims of the disaster.

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:59:55 PM EDT
Damm straight they should carry guns. If they don't, we might as well broadcast an invitation to terrorists.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:09:57 PM EDT
Yes
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 11:30:11 PM EDT
Wasn't Somalia originally a "humanitarian" mission? Did or didn't the events of "Blackhawk Down" occur as a result of attempting to remove an obstacle to distributing aid? Could I include a Wisconsin class Battleship and Abrams MBT or several hundred to available weapons?
Top Top