[mack]

Man, these nations piss me off so much. I heard on the radio today that Indonesia and its wacky muslim ass wipe radicals said that US troops cant carry any guns on the island, and that they have to return to the ships at night "to minimalize US footprints" These governments suck, but we have to help them because you can blame the starving farmer, only his stupid government.

And, aparently Indonesia had a early warning system in place developed by this scientist. It went off twice before, and they evacuated, and the wave wasnt big. This time it went off, and the minister of toursim thought it was a false alarm and didnt evacuate. :mumble: :mumble: :mumble:

I hope he dies :devil:

 

[N8 v2.0]

Man, these nations piss me off so much. I heard on the radio today that Indonesia and its wacky muslim ass wipe radicals said that US troops cant carry any guns on the island, and that they have to return to the ships at night "to minimalize US footprints" These governments suck, but we have to help them because you can blame the starving farmer, only his stupid government.

And, aparently Indonesia had a early warning system in place developed by this scientist. It went off twice before, and they evacuated, and the wave wasnt big. This time it went off, and the minister of toursim thought it was a false alarm and didnt evacuate. :mumble: :mumble: :mumble:

I hope he dies :devil:

Considering there is a nasty decades long war going on in Indonesia between the gov and rebels I know I'd rather carry a gun if I was in the area. I'd also like to know I was going to be sleeping on a US Navy ship at night and eating that great Navy chow.

 

[Echo]

I think they're perfectly within their rights to ask them not to carry guns. They aren't there on a military mission.

And they are also perfectly within their rights to not want the US sailors going around humping their women and getting drunk and fighting and whatever else.

But the first time one of the US military people gets shot, sorry all bets are off.

 

[biggins]

crying wolf is a mofo

 

[Silver]

I think they're perfectly within their rights to ask them not to carry guns. They aren't there on a military mission.

And they are also perfectly within their rights to not want the US sailors going around humping their women and getting drunk and fighting and whatever else.

But the first time one of the US military people gets shot, sorry all bets are off.

 

[mack]

I'd be packing a colt in my pants pocket. Now they are open targets for "holy warriors"

 

[MikeD]

I think they're perfectly within their rights to ask them not to carry guns. They aren't there on a military mission.

And they are also perfectly within their rights to not want the US sailors going around humping their women and getting drunk and fighting and whatever else.

But the first time one of the US military people gets shot, sorry all bets are off.

As a senior commander, there's no way in hell I'd let my troops go in unarmed. I'd even consider resigning if such an order came from the top. At the very least, you'd need armed escort for those who are actively involved in 'peaceful' operations. It's just negligent to allow that. Just like the USS Cole...they had no guns set up on the rails because it 'painted a bad picture' or something. Well, christ, a giant gaping smoking hole in the side of a US ship is a pretty bad pic, as are dead US sailors and (god help us all) footage of surviving sailors (*@%$!ing CRYING about it.

MD

 

[TheMontashu]

That is lame, We are sending more aid than any one. They should be grateful for the help not whining about it. If they will not let our guys carry then our guys should pack up and go where they are aloud to protect themselves.

 

[mack]

well you cant deny the poor farmer aid because he has a crazy government. The sad thing is that disasters are big bucks and lots of people make off like bandits when these things happen.

 

[Echo]

As a senior commander, there's no way in hell I'd let my troops go in unarmed. I'd even consider resigning if such an order came from the top. At the very least, you'd need armed escort for those who are actively involved in 'peaceful' operations. It's just negligent to allow that. Just like the USS Cole...they had no guns set up on the rails because it 'painted a bad picture' or something. Well, christ, a giant gaping smoking hole in the side of a US ship is a pretty bad pic, as are dead US sailors and (god help us all) footage of surviving sailors (*@%$!ing CRYING about it.

MD

As someone who spent 6 years in the US Navy and did 2 tours in the Persian Gulf, and never once felt the need to carry a weapon, I guess I just see things differently than you.

And your example of the USS Cole is out of context, the Cole was a war ship docked to take on fuel while conducting military operations. Now that certainly doesn't make it okay for terrorists to attack it, but it wasn't exactly delivering food to babies at the time.

 

[MikeD]

As someone who spent 6 years in the US Navy and did 2 tours in the Persian Gulf, and never once felt the need to carry a weapon, I guess I just see things differently than you.

And your example of the USS Cole is out of context, the Cole was a war ship docked to take on fuel while conducting military operations. Now that certainly doesn't make it okay for terrorists to attack it, but it wasn't exactly delivering food to babies at the time.

As a US Marine, I guess I do see things differently.

Potential threats don't really care what you're doing when they attack. They're just interested in killing you. They didn't care when they attacked the MEU training in the middle east, either. But those Marines are just as dead.

Edit: I'm quite aware of the possible interpretations of armed US personnel on 'muslim' (ie Indonesian) land. However, armed or not, those men are still targets, and I'd not deny them protection. If they were NGOs or something, that'd be different, but they're US military personnel in a potentially dangerous place...there are possiblities of attack from both extremist Muslims and supply/food piracy. It's unconscienable to think they shouldn't have means to defend themselves.

So while I'm sensitive to the beliefs and sensibilities of Muslims worldwide, I think the broader picture requires us to re-think our positions on stationing troops in the middle east and looking hard at the way in which we deal with the Muslim world politically...not leaving US troops out to dry in harm's way.

 

[jon cross]

Ok, this is simple- these are soldiers and they were volunteered for this relief mission. The politicians of the country they are going to help have the balls to put conditions on us? I think we should have just weighed anchor and turned around.

 

[MikeD]

Ok, this is simple- these are soldiers and they were volunteered for this relief mission. The politicians of the country they are going to help have the balls to put conditions on us? I think we should have just weighed anchor and turned around.

The Indonesian gov't does have a real furball on its hands, with potential major domestic backlash for the presence of US troops. So I don't think they're being unreasonable, really...

It's a lose/lose situation for us. We look arrogant going in and basically saying that the Indonesian gov't isn't competent enough to protect us, and we're weak and easily targeted if we go in unarmed. Out of the choices, I choose the one that has the potential to kill fewer US servicemen. Let the Dept of State, the Peace Corps, and NGOs handle the aid. Militaries exist to kill people and break things...neither of which is particularly neccessary at the moment, both already having happened in spades.

MD

 

[jon cross]

I think our guys over there can be a positive- and I highly doubt that a MEU on the ground will be turned away because they are packing- at least not by the locals. It's their government that I suspect is behind making these calls. I heard also that they weren't wanting us to wear armor or kevlar either, it is perceived as "intimidating.'' If they are serious about needing our help (and the criticisms that our aid is "stingy" would certainly suggest that) it seems idiotic to put conditions on it. Furthermore, we are putting US troops on the ground, without weapons, without armor, without security- assuming we comply 100%. These places are probably not the best to expose our troops like that with no way to fight back.

 

[mack]

How picky can you get when you have starving citizens.

 

[ito]

Let the Dept of State, the Peace Corps, and NGOs handle the aid.
MD

Wouldn't these groups have better training to handle such a situation anyway? As well they would provide less of a "threat" to locals. While the government can't be that picky I think there are people better suited to handling the situation.

Why are U.S. soldiers being deployed to take food to people and help rebuild? Is it because they are the closest to the vicinity? Just wondering.

The Ito

 

[Changleen]

Man you guys are so ****ing stupid sometimes.

 

[Echo]

Man you guys are so ****ing stupid sometimes.

At least everyone else in this thread has the balls to actually voice an opinion. Unlike you.

 

[PonySoldier]

"As a senior commander, there's no way in hell I'd let my troops go in unarmed. I'd even consider resigning if such an order came from the top. At the very least, you'd need armed escort for those who are actively involved in 'peaceful' operations. It's just negligent to allow that. Just like the USS Cole...they had no guns set up on the rails because it 'painted a bad picture' or something. Well, christ, a giant gaping smoking hole in the side of a US ship is a pretty bad pic, as are dead US sailors and (god help us all) footage of surviving sailors (*@%$!ing CRYING about it."

MD

The Marines in Beirut were also unarmed and couldn't therefore prevent the truck bombing.

 

[fluff]

At least everyone else in this thread has the balls to actually voice an opinion. Unlike you.

I know this'll piss you off, but regardless of how uninformtive and unhelpful changleen's post was, it did contain an opinion.

 

[Echo]

I know this'll piss you off, but regardless of how uninformtive and unhelpful changleen's post was, it did contain an opinion.

Nope, didn't piss me off.

Of course it contained an opinion, but that opinion had nothing do do with the subject at hand.

I could easily post in every thread that I think Changleen and N8 are morons incapable of individual thought, and that would be my opinion, but that wouldn't really add much would it?

 

[fluff]

Nope, didn't piss me off.

Of course it contained an opinion, but that opinion had nothing do do with the subject at hand.

I could easily post in every thread that I think Changleen and N8 are morons incapable of individual thought, and that would be my opinion, but that wouldn't really add much would it?

True. That's both the beauty and the ugliness of the internet.

 

[MikeD]

The Marines in Beirut were also unarmed and couldn't therefore prevent the truck bombing.

Never heard that. I know they had restrictive ROE, and a few other problems, but they were armed to the best of my knowledge...

 

[Echo]

True. That's both the beauty and the ugliness of the internet.

I guess I just fail to see the beauty part of those two's posts. Without their constant brainless posting of extreme left and right propaganda, it might actually be possible for the rest of us to have some somewhat reasonable discussions here.

 

[fluff]

I guess I just fail to see the beauty part of those two's posts. Without their constant brainless posting of extreme left and right propaganda, it might actually be possible for the rest of us to have some somewhat reasonable discussions here.

I meant that everyone has a voice is the beauty, the ugliness is that everyone can abuse their voice.

 

[Echo]

I meant that everyone has a voice is the beauty, the ugliness is that everyone can abuse their voice.

Ah, got it.

 

[MikeD]

Man you guys are so ****ing stupid sometimes.

Chang, care to explain? (Ignore the kiddies who just happen to be right despite their current levels of intellect and maturity, please...)

I'm assuming you think it's immature and short-sighted and cowboy-ish and overaggressive to insist on our troops being armed, and counterproductive in presenting yet more armed Americans on Muslim soil to be reviled by the Muslim world, all the while foregoing a chance to help people who truly need it? (just speculating...)

Yeah, it is, frankly (the latter half of it, anyhow), but it's also irresponsible to put Americans in harm's way without protection. If there wasn't a chance they'd be attacked, they could go in unarmed. However, since America's previous relations with the Muslim world have led to the current state of relations, and the Indonesian gov't itself readily admits to there being a problem with terrorists within the population (the most populous Muslim country on the globe), you have to deal the real potential for this to happen.

And I personally couldn't and wouldn't make a sacrifice of American lives in this situation. I couldn't tell a mother that her son, a military man, was killed while unarmed and unprotected on my orders. Plus, such killings would only be decent propoganda for extremists, whereas attacking unarmed NGOs or other non-military aid workers would definitely be bad press. Only the truest wack-jobs in the world would see harrassing or ousting "US presence" in the form of unarmed aid workers in this time of huge crisis as a good thing.

The Indonesian gov't is frankly making a good move, I think, in that they're showing the more extreme elements of their population that they aren't US puppets, and the aid will get out one way or another, regardless of a military presence. I'm sure the people on the devastated beaches wouldn't care to much about whether aid workers were armed or unarmed, but there's a whole country's feelings and opinions to consider. And Aceh is a polarized enough community as-is...internal religious and cultural conflict has been quite bad already.

They're also protecting the US servicemen by not allowing them into harm's way, and denying any terrorists a lucrative target, also thus obviating the need to respond to a major international incident during an already massive time of crisis.

Both gov'ts are stuck with tough choices, and I think good ones were made on both sides here.

MD

 

[MikeD]

Why are U.S. soldiers being deployed to take food to people and help rebuild? Is it because they are the closest to the vicinity? Just wondering.

Yes, that's pretty much it. The MEU is a group of Navy ships with Marines on them...the Marines were dropped off in Iraq, and the ships had nothing to do, so they sped on over to the scene to lend a hand. The military can get there faster than anyone else, and the ships have desalination gear to make water and helicopters and landing craft which can delver supplies...

Frankly, I don't see why we're not just providing the water and transport to the non-military aid workers/NGOs; our armed troops never get off the birds or boats, and the aid workers get free and efficient distribution of supplies.

 

[Changleen]

Chang, care to explain? (Ignore the kiddies who just happen to be right despite their current levels of intellect and maturity, please...)

I'm assuming you think it's immature and short-sighted and cowboy-ish and overaggressive to insist on our troops being armed, and counterproductive in presenting yet more armed Americans on Muslim soil to be reviled by the Muslim world, all the while foregoing a chance to help people who truly need it? (just speculating...)

Wow, you're pretty good at speculation...

Yeah, it is, frankly (the latter half of it, anyhow), but it's also irresponsible to put Americans in harm's way without protection. If there wasn't a chance they'd be attacked, they could go in unarmed. However, since America's previous relations with the Muslim world have led to the current state of relations, and the Indonesian gov't itself readily admits to there being a problem with terrorists within the population (the most populous Muslim country on the globe), you have to deal the real potential for this to happen.

I think in reality the chance of US troops being attacked in this role is very slim. As the article shows the fact that weapons are being carried is an issue to the countries involved. If you really want to change your image, get your balls out and leave the weapons on the troop carrier (or wherever). Take off the body armour and the helmets, roll up the sleves and get stuck in. The signal this sends is FAR more powerful than turning up in combat gear with an M4 or whatever.

Not wanting to tell the yanks how to do anyting, but take a look at how the British army deals with this type of situation and the successes they've had over the years. Even in Iraq, in the south, British troops patrolled without helmets and unarmed wherever possible the reaction to the british troops was undeniably far less agressive than the reation to the US troops. We've been doing this **** for years. Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Africa etc. It works.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you seriously want to be percieved as peaceful do-gooders you're gonna have to take the chance and go unarmed. Maybe, just maybe, a few soldiers may be attacked and killed - if so this would be due to the huge stockpile of resentment you've been successfully building recently (and no offence, but you'd probably deserve it).

As you rightly pointed out, killing unarmed troops in this situation would be seen as 'a bad thing' by the majority population and the deaths would at least serve a useful purpose rather than the pointless (and inflamatory) deaths you seem quite willing to suffer everyday in Iraq.

In conclusion, if you want to make a good impression, suck it up and grow some balls. Muck in and help. Get dirty with the locals. Leave the offensive weapons. They are offensive in more ways than one.

 

[Zutroy]

The Marines in Beirut were also unarmed and couldn't therefore prevent the truck bombing.

If someone wants to do soemthing like that, having you weapon you you isn't going to do a thing Look at mosal, everyone on that base had a weapon, and that didn't stop a thing.

 

[PonySoldier]

Never heard that. I know they had restrictive ROE, and a few other problems, but they were armed to the best of my knowledge...

I stand corrected, I was sure I had read somewhere that they had weapons but they were unloaded at the time. So I searched to confirm and found this which would indicate otherwise.

"At 6.22am, a yellow Mercedes truck entered the car parking lot in front of the US Marines building, circled once, according to guards posted out front, and then rammed its way through a wire barricade and on into the lobby of the building where it was detonated with an estimated force of some 12,000 pounds of TNT.

Questions have immediately been asked as to why the armed guards outside failed to get off even a single shot as the truck raced towards its target. It seems likely that no-one had any time to react once danger had been sensed.

One of the guards outside the building, Lance Corporal Henry Linkila, told eyewitness that he had been manning a post in front of the building and had only had time to prepare his weapon before the truck delivered its deadly load. There simply hadn't been time to fire it."

 

[Zutroy]

I stand corrected, I was sure I had read somewhere that they had weapons but they were unloaded at the time. So I searched to confirm and found this which would indicate otherwise.

"At 6.22am, a yellow Mercedes truck entered the car parking lot in front of the US Marines building, circled once, according to guards posted out front, and then rammed its way through a wire barricade and on into the lobby of the building where it was detonated with an estimated force of some 12,000 pounds of TNT.

Questions have immediately been asked as to why the armed guards outside failed to get off even a single shot as the truck raced towards its target. It seems likely that no-one had any time to react once danger had been sensed.

One of the guards outside the building, Lance Corporal Henry Linkila, told eyewitness that he had been manning a post in front of the building and had only had time to prepare his weapon before the truck delivered its deadly load. There simply hadn't been time to fire it."

It all goes to, all the firepower in the world can't stop something you don't know is coming.

 

[ummbikes]

There are some really good points here. The military is in a wierd spot, they are a fighting force who are now acting a disaster relief workers. I can see how it would uncomfortable for them to go unarmed.

The Indonesian goverment, even in the face of horrific disaster still is the ruler of their land. We would never tolerate any armed troops of another nation walking the streets even if they were helping provide support after a tragedy.

As far as Beruit, the one man I have spoken to who was there and is missing most of his left hand to prove it was asleep when the barracks were bombed. He woke in the hospital.

I'm still not able to amke the connection between that event and what is going on in Indonesia. Would it be possible to have the soldiers and saliors who are on the ground to work out of uniform? If so would that appease the Indonesian government?

 

[valve bouncer]

The Indonesian goverment, even in the face of horrific disaster still is the ruler of their land. We would never tolerate any armed troops of another nation walking the streets even if they were helping provide support after a tragedy.

Yep, good point. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives. You'd like to think that putting them potentially in harms way in an effort to save thousands of lives is worth the risk.

 

[Handlebarsfsr]

so what would you say if japan sent aid to california to aid with the flooding and mudlslides, and it insisted that their aid workers carried guns? i know that everyone here would be flipping a **** if there were armed foreign troops on our soil, so what is so different about indonesia? ****, concidering that we have recently invaded and conquered 2 soverign, predominantly muslim nations, why wouldnt these countries be at least somewhat uneasy about us having armed troops there. im sure that, with good reason, some of the government officials in indonesia belive that we could easily conquer them, given that their country is in abosolute shambles at the moment. maybe if you got off your high horse and looked at the world from someone else's perspective instead of your own "im an american and my head is shoved so far up my ass that if anyone doesnt belive we are the greatest ****ing people in the the world and anyone who doesnt like us or approve of everything we do is a moron" you'd understand.

 

[MikeD]

so what would you say if japan sent aid to california to aid with the flooding and mudlslides, and it insisted that their aid workers carried guns? i know that everyone here would be flipping a **** if there were armed foreign troops on our soil, so what is so different about indonesia? ****, concidering that we have recently invaded and conquered 2 soverign, predominantly muslim nations, why wouldnt these countries be at least somewhat uneasy about us having armed troops there.

I'm quite aware of all of this...and that's why I think it's a good idea that the Indonesian gov't didn't allow armed Americans on its soil.

That's not mutually exclusive to thinking our troops, if they're in Indonesia, which has an extremely high threat level, should be armed. We just shouldn't be sending the military onto the beach in the first place. Bad news all around.

Indonesia, aside from not wanting to offend its own population or any of the rest of the muslim world, also doesn't want to have risk an international incident should American military personnel be attacked.

MD

 

[mack]

I'm quite aware of all of this...and that's why I think it's a good idea that the Indonesian gov't didn't allow armed Americans on its soil.

That's not mutually exclusive to thinking our troops, if they're in Indonesia, which has an extremely high threat level, should be armed. We just shouldn't be sending the military onto the beach in the first place. Bad news all around.

Indonesia, aside from not wanting to offend its own population or any of the rest of the muslim world, also doesn't want to have risk an international incident should American military personnel be attacked.

MD

Yeah, but the USA i hope has a better reputation than a country like Indonesia, i mean come on.
:heart: that USA>

 

[ummbikes]

We just shouldn't be sending the military onto the beach in the first place. Bad news all around.



MD

I think so too, but you would know better with your experience. My primary issue is that the mission of these guys not aid workers. I'm not saying the military can't do the job well, maybe even better than civillians, I just think that that particular task is better suited to others in this case.

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, but the USA i hope has a better reputation than a country like Indonesia, i mean come on.
:heart: that USA>

Actually I think the US has possibly the worst reputation in the world right now. Recent polls suggest most Europeans and Asians both view America as the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin over any of the 'Axis of Evil' countries.

Besides, how many countries did Indonesia invade on false pretexts recently?

 

[Transcend]

Actually I think the US has possibly the worst reputation in the world right now. Recent polls suggest most Europeans and Asians both view America as the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin over any of the 'Axis of Evil' countries.

Besides, how many countries did Indonesia invade on false pretexts recently?

sure, they most certainly have a worse reputation then Syria, North Korea, Iran. Grow up man.

New Zealand must not have much contact with the real world. Evry post seems more and more deluded, you really do live in your own little fantasy world.

As for the US forces..they are in a spot. Indonesia is a very Muslim environment, and as you so aptly point out, Muslims don't love the Western World right now. Going in unarmed is a risk, is it an acceptable one considering the circumstances? Yes.

Should they be forced to not wear body armor? Hell no. Passively protecting their own asses is even more important when they aren't armed.