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?

micky wrote:

Comments?

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.

micky wrote:
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?

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

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:20:12 -0400, micky
wrote:

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?

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-

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.

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]


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.

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

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't know- any variation is possible.

Jim

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:20:12 PM UTC-7, micky wrote:
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?

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

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:22:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:20:12 -0400, micky
wrote:

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?

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-

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.

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.

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

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]


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.

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

Uh-huh.

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't know- any variation is possible.

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.



Jim

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

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

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

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
www.lds.org
..

"micky" wrote in message
...
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?

"micky" wrote in message
...
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?

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.

micky wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:22:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:20:12 -0400, micky
wrote:

-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.

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


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

Uh-huh.

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

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

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

It is a further sign that America has lost the war and your
(republican) leaders are sub-intelligent.

Agreed.

But you have to be stupid to be republican.

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" ?

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
www.lds.org
..

"Root" wrote in message
...

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?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:33:52 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

micky wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:22:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:20:12 -0400, micky
wrote:

-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.

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


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

Uh-huh.

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.

A thoughtful answer. Thanks.

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

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.

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.

Jim

On Aug 29, 6:20*pm, micky wrote:
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?

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:

http://www.voanews.com/content/five-...n/1498407.html

4th paragraph

"Root" wrote in message
...
harryagain used improper usenet message composition style by
unnecessarily full-quoting:

It is a further sign that America has lost the war and your
(republican) leaders are sub-intelligent.

Agreed.

But you have to be stupid to be republican.

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" ?

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

DerbyDad03 wrote:

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:

http://www.voanews.com/content/five-...n/1498407.html

4th paragraph

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

I heard something like that, on the radio.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

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:

http://www.voanews.com/content/five-...n/1498407.html

4th paragraph

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 29, 6:20*pm, micky wrote:
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?

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:

http://www.voanews.com/content/five-...n/1498407.html

4th paragraph

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

DerbyDad03 wrote:

-snip-

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:

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

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:34:12 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

-snip-

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:

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

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.