pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
U.S. Marines surrender weapons!
#1
How low can the Obama Administration go?

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/02...570&rank=1
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
Reply
#2
[Image: 05f.jpeg]
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#3
They destroyed their crew served weapons, and I imagine the pistols, M16s, and shotguns went to Yemeni security forces at the actual departure site at the airport. Those few small arms are unlikely to change any outcome in the fall of Yemen... Iran is fueling the Houthi with heavy weapons, troops, and logistical support.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#4
(02-11-2015, 11:51 PM)Ten*K Wrote: They destroyed their crew served weapons, and I imagine the pistols, M16s, and shotguns went to Yemeni security forces at the actual departure site at the airport. Those few small arms are unlikely to change any outcome in the fall of Yemen... Iran is fueling the Houthi with heavy weapons, troops, and logistical support.

It's the mere fact that they had to walk out with their tails between their legs. Should have pulled them earlier, or sent in the Reaction Force to fortify their position. OBAMA SURRENDERED THE FORT!
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
Reply
#5
DeadEye;161661 Wrote:
(02-11-2015, 11:51 PM)Ten*K Wrote: They destroyed their crew served weapons, and I imagine the pistols, M16s, and shotguns went to Yemeni security forces at the actual departure site at the airport. Those few small arms are unlikely to change any outcome in the fall of Yemen... Iran is fueling the Houthi with heavy weapons, troops, and logistical support.

It's the mere fact that they had to walk out with their tails between their legs. Should have pulled them earlier, or sent in the Reaction Force to fortify their position. OBAMA SURRENDERED THE FORT!

Uhh... no. The Marines are not there to defend the building. They are there to defend the Ambassador, staff, and data. They boarded a civilian flight once the mission was determined to be complete.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#6
(02-12-2015, 12:18 PM)Ten*K Wrote:
DeadEye;161661 Wrote:It's the mere fact that they had to walk out with their tails between their legs. Should have pulled them earlier, or sent in the Reaction Force to fortify their position. OBAMA SURRENDERED THE FORT!

Uhh... no. The Marines are not there to defend the building. They are there to defend the Ambassador, staff, and data. They boarded a civilian flight once the mission was determined to be complete.

You're bantering semantics. If it was at that level, they should have already been pulled. It's a surrender anyway you look at it, especially since it was only weeks ago Obama was holding up Yemen as a shining example of how his smart strategy is working.
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
Reply
#7
Well, as a former Marine Security Forces team commander, I know what the job is. The semantics is for politicians, and no Marine "surrendered". Never mind that Embassy Marines not there for sustained combat operations and are, in fact, there to do exactly what they did in this circumstance.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#8
Shouldnt it be a priority to destroy anything that the enemy can use against us or other friendly forces? Why not set the vehicles on fire or blow them up? What about other weapons that may have been there?
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#9
Ten*K;161665 Wrote:Well, as a former Marine Security Forces team commander, I know what the job is. The semantics is for politicians, and no Marine "surrendered". Never mind that Embassy Marines not there for sustained combat operations and are, in fact, there to do exactly what they did in this circumstance.

And so you are all too close to the MARINE issue, and therefore, are naturally are going to downplay it as a non-issue. I'm viewing it, as others, that this is a blatant kick in the teeth in that Marines "turned over their weapons" (to turn over anything to another person is commonly referred to as SURRENDERING it).

Again, if things had broken down to that point, why weren't the Marine's pulled earlier? Why leave them in harm's way? It's the same crap they did in Benghazi, Libya that left four good men to die. No matter how you try and spin it, it's not a good thing.

Not to mention, Obama himself was on television, only a few weeks ago, holding up Yemen as a shining example as to how his "Smart Strategy" was working.


OH, THIS JUST IN.....

"The Marine Corps does not dispute the reporting that CENTCOM is outraged over weapons being rendered inoperable."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/11/rp...evacuation

Yes, the Marines are vehemently denying that any weapons were taken or that they turned any weapons over.... just as though the Corps doesn't recognize RETREAT, instead opting to call it "fighting backwards"....

In essence, IT WAS NOT A GOOD THING!
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
Reply
#10
I'm going with the subject matter expert on this, 10K.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama Plans To Force Marines To Wear “Unisex” Hats… middlefinger 10 1,076 10-25-2013, 08:41 AM
Last Post: spblademaker
  it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria's chemical weapons middlefinger 4 963 09-06-2013, 11:49 AM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel
  Al Nusra Front Commander Says Free Syrian Army Selling Them Weapons…. middlefinger 0 770 07-28-2013, 02:46 PM
Last Post: middlefinger
  Marines steamed by loss of hot meal at Afghanistan base longcall911 2 648 06-01-2013, 01:53 AM
Last Post: Emoticon
  Harry Reid Implies Sequester Caused Explosion That Killed 7 Marines In Nevada Pocketprotector 7 970 03-19-2013, 07:04 PM
Last Post: Ten*K



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.