11 1 min 10 yrs

Why exactly were US soldiers asked to disarm during a speech by Leon Panetta, the American defence secretary? Was there a fear that someone might try and shoot him? Has this ever happened before and if so, when? What does it say about the confidence Panetta has in his OWN soldiers? Quite the morale booster – right?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “DOES PANETTA NOT TRUST US MARINES?

  1. You’ve just gotta love it!…

    It doesn’t matter how high you are on the ladder, or how powerful you may be, or think you are, there is always that knowledge and fear that there is always someone more powerful than you, – the guy with the hv rifle with a telescopic sight!

    So far, in our modren history, only usd by the deranged, but always there is the fear that it may be used by the seiously disgruntled.

    It reminds of the old definition of true democracy – ‘a benevolent dictator, overseen by a group of individual, and uknown assasins’… I know, there can never be such a thing, but wih incidents like this, it is good to know that ‘they’ – i.e the scumbags, are quite aware that it could happen, and in a town or country near you!…

  2. Sweet.

    Can the rest of us now fear the armed might of the State without being paranoid now?

  3. Hey,

    If I were the king of New Jersey I’d ban ALL cars from the Garden State Parkway when I was driving on it to my holiday home in Seaside Heights. That would insure some maniac in a 5-litre Mustang didn’t take me and my family on an “eternal holiday”.

    Panetta, seeing the disturbing mental condition that almost 11-years of constant combat has put many grunts in, was only taking out an insurance policy, probably issued by the Obummer Insurance Co, Ltd.

    In reality, however, my trip on the G-S-P would be infinitely more hazardous.

  4. I have always suspected that the reason we have such strict firearms legislation in this country is that our governments have always had a uneasy mistrust of an armed electorate.

  5. The disarm order came from a new US general who wanted to show parity with Afghan soldiers who attended and were also disarmed. It was a goofy mistaken protocol. Of course military minds never make mistakes…

  6. Peter T –

    That’s the very reason. Prior to WWI we were the most well-armed people anywhere. You could buy a pistol in many places on the High St and British men routinely went about armed.

    The Russian revolutions of 1917 gave the Establishment the willies and it led to the 1920 Firearms Act. It was still a mild restriction by today’s standard, but it was gateway legislation that paved the way for later statutes.

  7. “parity with Afghan soldiers”

    God forbid such a thing be advanced. I mean maybe if you were in Afg.. oh, hang on!

  8. Latet news is that ‘humanitarian aid’ will begin this weekend, – with UN approval.
    Of course the new definition of humanitarian aid inevitably includes a few cases of military hardware.

    Seems like all tha wining and dining has paid off.

  9. As far as I am concerned we should leave the place.

    Mahons – the US corporate-military won’t be going anywhere until a deal is done to secure Afghanistan’s opium crop which is currently providing 90% of hard drugs in the cities of the US and UK (and most other places too).

    What will happen is that the US ‘armed forces’ withdraw being replaced by ‘contractors’ – I’m sure you know what that means!

  10. The dam’s breaking on Afghanistan.

    Jack Cafferty had a splendid rant the other day about how we need to get out but “the military-industrial complex has got us by the throat”.

    Here’s the thing though, he did it on CNN, and you don’t get to put out dangerous ideas on that government channel.

Comments are closed.