Huh?

Post #46,379 by Brandioch 7/22/02 12:05:16 PM Reply	Huh? ``I think it is time to revisit it,'' Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. That would ``allow for military that has expertise with weapons of mass destruction to be called in'' if such a plot was discovered. Huh? As "experts" to help the local police? I have a news flash for you people, the "experts" that the military relies upon are government contractors. The military people know how to deploy them and how to use what they're issued to minimize their casualties. But they don't know anything about dealing with them on any other level. Ridge downplayed the notion that the government would move to give members of the military authority to arrest U.S. citizen. The subject hasn't yet come up for debate in the administration, though it might be discussed once Bush's homeland security department is created. We currently have a US citizen under "detainment" by the military. This is a BIG issue. It is ``not very realistic'' to deny the military the ability, for example, to shoot at suspected terrorists trying to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on a passenger train, Biden said. #1. What is the military doing, carrying weapons and ammo on a civilian passenger train. This is in violation of all kinds of regulations. Allow me to rephrase that question. "It is 'not very realistic' to deny the military the ability, for example, to shoot at suspected terrorists at the local Starbucks." #1. Military personnel have to be at that location. This is acceptable. #2. The military personnel at that location have to be carrying their weapons. BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! This is a BAD THING!!! This is CURRENTLY a COURT MARTIAL OFFENSE!!! You do NOT take your weapon OFF POST without authorization and you do NOT EVER take it into a CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT! #3. The person who just performed all kinds of violations in #2 ALSO CARRIES LIVE AMMO!!! For everyone who does NOT understand the reasoning behind this, think about the firepower of an M16. Now, think about the fact that it only takes a .22 pistol to kill the person carrying the M16. So, a bad guy in a store wants your M16 so he kills you and takes your M16 and knocks over a few banks and wastes a bunch of tellers. We do NOT provide free weapons upgrades for the bad guys! Now, suppose the military gets called in because a "suspected" terrorist has a chemical weapon. If it is a REAL terrorist, the military will be there TOO LATE to do anything but help with the clean up. Pay attention to what happens in Israel. Waiter: "Sir, one for dinner? Smoking or non-smoking?" Terrorist: Boom! Other diners: "Ahhhhhh! Eehhhhhhh! Help!" ``Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot-to-kill, if in fact they were approaching the weapon,'' Biden said. Again, Israel. The momement they identify a "suspected" terrorist with a bomb, calling in the military is too late.
Post #46,498 by wharris2 7/23/02 11:11:14 AM Reply	Nit Now, think about the fact that it only takes a .22 pistol to kill the person carrying the M16. With a reasonably good shot (often hard to do in the excitement of the moment). Better to have good stopping power than to be defenseless. Take the case of the shootout in Wilmington, Ohio, February 17, 1997. Police and fanatics were blazing away at each other. The incident is most notable for being (mostly) caught on videotape (you might be able to catch it, if you didn't see it the first time, on Cops reruns.) Nobody even got hit despite apparently emptying their weapons at each other in a shootout where everyone is within 10-15 feet of each other, and at least two (the officers involved) presumably being somewhat trained in the use of weapons. Later, one of the perps were seen in a parking lot and another shootout occurred. 26 rifle casings from the extremist's weapon were recovered there. The only injury was an arm injury to a bystander. You can probably point to counter-examples, but I think you're exaggerating the "being able to take weapon away" aspect of the entire thing. Nevertheless, I agree that the military have no business doing police work whatever weapons they are carrying. Police investigation and confrontation has an entirely different goal from the proper use of the military. It's an oversimplification, but a police officer is there to arrest criminals, and protect innocent bystanders, and a private in the army is there to kill the enemies of the United States and break enough things to persuade to not shoot back. Trying to have one do the job of the other impairs their ability to do their primary job. Military effectiveness is decreased by "police actions", while police effectiveness is decreased by a "Shoot first and ask questions later" attitude - and when a police officer kills an innocent bystander, or even an unarmed not-so innocent or surrendering criminal, investigations, lawsuits, and even dismissals ensue. If the U.N. or the U.S. wants to have an "international police force" of some sort, fine - train one that's designed to do that, don't coopt member nations' armies into jobs they're poorly equipped and not trained to do. If the U.N. or the U.S. feels it wants to go to war, then do so, don't go about it half-baked.
Post #46,694 by Brandioch 7/24/02 9:50:32 AM Reply	Scenario. Soldier walks into a 7-11 with an M16. Bad guy in the store wants a weapon upgrade. Bad guy moves behind the soldier and caps him with a .22 pistol and takes his M16. Bad guy might be able to take out 2 or 3 unsuspecting soldiers. If bad guy has a friend there who also has a .22 pistol, it becomes very easy. You can probably point to counter-examples, but I think you're exaggerating the "being able to take weapon away" aspect of the entire thing. I'm talking about walking up behind an unsuspecting soldier and putting a .22 pistol to his head and killing him. I'm not talking about a firefight. If the U.N. or the U.S. wants to have an "international police force" of some sort, fine - train one that's designed to do that, don't coopt member nations' armies into jobs they're poorly equipped and not trained to do. If the U.N. or the U.S. feels it wants to go to war, then do so, don't go about it half-baked. Yup. "Peace-keeping" is not something the military can do. At best they can stop the bad guys from doing anything overt until they leave. Only a local police force can keep the peace.

Welcome to IWETHEY!