Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil.

[Fredkrueger100]

If this doesn’t show how bad things are in this country nothing ever will. I can’t sit here and believe our government allows Mexicans [ armed] to come onto our soil and apprehend our own soldiers by force. Those soldiers or whoever they really are should have been killed as soon as they stepped foot into our country. All our response has shown is that we will allow it to happen. Big deal, Trump told them they better not do it again. Or what? Obama said the same kind of crap and nothing ever happened. Trump should have immediately sent a ton of heavily armed troops there and issued a warning that if another soldier ever crosses into our country they will be considered hostile and killed. My other question is : why are the soldiers there not heavily armed? It’s ridiculous.

 

[John6185]

I read that Trump is sending armed soldiers to the border. I only hope they have bullets unlike the security on the USS Cole that we’re armed with rifles but no bullets and a speeding boat with explosives:...you know the rest of that story.

 

[Ethan N]

I read that Trump is sending armed soldiers to the border. I only hope they have bullets unlike the security on the USS Cole that we’re armed with rifles but no bullets and a speeding boat with explosives:...you know the rest of that story.

Well there were two guards on deck that had pistols with two rounds each, but they weren’t allowed to load them or fire unless they went to ask the captain for permission first. I’ve never served in the armed forces, but it’s absurd to me that US soldiers were stationed at the Mexican border practically unarmed. Why does it seem like our military always binge watches The Andy Griffith Show before setting rules of engagement in dangerous places?

 

[GlockPride]

Three problems here:
First: build a damn barrier where the Mexicans can stay on the Mexican side only!
Two: situational awareness! If you’re out in the bush scouting people who are in a serious business, you’d better have your ‘eyes on’ and head on a swivel.
Three: NEVER surrender your weapon! You lose ALL control and basically become a slave at that point.

 

[nich018]

We will never surrender!!!!!!

 

[dennishoddy]

I read that Trump is sending armed soldiers to the border. I only hope they have bullets unlike the security on the USS Cole that we’re armed with rifles but no bullets and a speeding boat with explosives:...you know the rest of that story.

That is quite common. The Marines in the Beirut barracks only had a few rounds issued to each soldier. It's been a long time but something makes me remember that guards at the gate with M-60's only had a few rounds as well. I stand to be corrected on that.
When our unit was on guard duty at Ft Campbell KY around the Nuke storage area, we were only issued three rounds for our M-16's.
Most times while on guard duty, you weren't even issued a single round in CONUS.

No Way to Defend U.S. Beirut Base, Panel Told
DON SHANNONTimes Staff Writer


The commander of the Marine unit in Beirut hit by a suicide bombing in 1983 that killed 241 U.S. servicemen told congressional investigators in a closed-door session after the tragedy that his base had been "virtually impossible" to defend against a terrorist attack, newly declassified testimony disclosed Wednesday.

Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, who commanded the 1,800 Marines in the war-torn Lebanese capital, told the House Armed Services Committee that adequate defenses could not be built around the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport because his troops' peacekeeping mission was more political and diplomatic than military.

Roads to Compound

Indeed, Geraghty said, the Marine compound was so vulnerable that it was nearly impossible to block the roads that approached it--one of them the route driven by a Muslim terrorist in a truck laden with 12,000 pounds of explosives that crashed into the Americans' barracks on Oct. 23, 1983.

"I could take you by that airport and stand there for an hour, and we could count 300 refuelers or airline catering trucks or dump trucks--any of which could be loaded with the same or bigger bomb--that would be moving 10 feet from (the compound) fence and drive through it and blow it and kill 800 people," Geraghty said. If the truck "didn't go through the location that it did, I could give you 10 other locations it could get in the compound," he added.

He was unable to explain, however, why the gate through which the truck sped was open at the time of the attack or why it was customarily left open.

The Marine commander testified in late 1983 before the committee when it probed the bombing in eight days of closed hearings. Later, the panel issued a report highly critical of military officials for failing to protect the U.S. troops. The newly declassified testimony was contained in a separate 654-page committee report.

Geraghty, now commander of the Marine Corps barracks at the Norfolk, Va., Naval Station, never has discussed the bombing publicly.

Geraghty's immediate superior, Navy Capt. Morgan France, testified that he, like his Marine subordinate, believed that security at the barracks was adequate in the face of known threats. But he said that although there were hundreds of intelligence reports on potential terrorist threats, no warning had been issued that a truck bomb might be used instead of the less deadly car bombs that are Lebanese terrorists' usual weapon.

Because the size of the threat was "new and unique," Geraghty agreed, "trying to provide any kind of protection in that environment is virtually impossible."

He told committee members that he decided to forbid most of the Marine sentries to carry ammunition in their rifles because of the danger of an accidental shooting amid the heavy civilian traffic at the airport.

For the same reason, he said, anti-tank rockets, which might have prevented the terrorist's truck from reaching the barracks, were not kept ready at the gates to the compound.

He speculated that the barracks bombing may have been in retaliation for U.S. naval gunfire and air attacks on Shia Muslim areas of Beirut, from which the Marines had been fired upon by small arms, rockets and artillery for months.

Furthermore, he indirectly criticized the September, 1983, decision by higher U.S. commanders to begin the attacks, in support of beleaguered Lebanese army units, saying he had "my reservations" about such actions.

Change in Neutral Role

"I felt that the provision of direct support to the Lebanese, that we ought to be very careful with this, because it clearly changed our neutral role--our peacekeeping role--and that our vulnerabilities were not unknown," Geraghty said.

During the testimony, Rep. Beverly B. Byron (D-Md.) observed that committee members who had visited Beirut were so worried about "the vulnerability of your position" that they met with Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger only three days before the bombing to register their concern.

"We recognized that you were sitting ducks, that you were being targeted and you had very little to respond," agreed Rep. Samuel S. Stratton, a committee member.

Geraghty told committee members that none of the top officers who visited the Marines' installation before the disaster--including Gen. Paul X. Kelley, commandant of the Marine Corps, and Army Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--had criticized security procedures there.

But Vessey, in a separate appearance before the panel, said that during each of his three trips to Beirut before the bombing, he had urged that sandbag bunkers at the airport site be strengthened and that other security improvements be undertaken.

The bombing of the Marine barracks prompted widespread calls for a U.S. withdrawal of troops from Lebanon, and President Reagan ordered the pullout four months later.


https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-08-22-mn-2223-story.html

 

[Cohiba]

Absolutely nothing new.

My personal story:
2001 I was doing an environmental job in El Paso. I noticed NUMEROUS(around 50 that I saw) National Guardsmen. I went into a Dennys one night and struck up a conversation. I asked what side arms they were carrying. Nothing....nothing was the response. I asked what part of Texas they were from...they weren't. They were from Arizona and California only....only...to help Border Patrol.

They spot them and call Border Patrol. They could not arrest, hold, detain, nor defend themselves...no firearms. DO NOT TOUCH THEM!!!

Mexico has a STRANGLE HOLD on America. I don't know if our government doesn't want a conflict and have to worry about Americans in Mexico while controlling possible riots here???

If you don't believe me...look at our schools....go to larger cities and drive by a Home Depot and look at the groups looking for work. I can go on and on.

Don't blame Trump...this has been going on FOREVER. I just don't understand what Mexico's power on America is? We are helpless against Mexico.....get use to it.

Nothing to see here....move along.

 

[TerryMiller]

Absolutely nothing new.

My personal story:
2001 I was doing an environmental job in El Paso. I noticed NUMEROUS(around 50 that I saw) National Guardsmen. I went into a Dennys one night and struck up a conversation. I asked what side arms they were carrying. Nothing....nothing was the response. I asked what part of Texas they were from...they weren't. They were from Arizona and California only....only...to help Border Patrol.

They spot them and call Border Patrol. They could not arrest, hold, detain, nor defend themselves...no firearms. DO NOT TOUCH THEM!!!

Mexico has a STRANGLE HOLD on America. I don't know if our government doesn't want a conflict and have to worry about Americans in Mexico while controlling possible riots here???

If you don't believe me...look at our schools....go to larger cities and drive by a Home Depot and look at the groups looking for work. I can go on and on.

Don't blame Trump...this has been going on FOREVER. I just don't understand what Mexico's power on America is? We are helpless against Mexico.....get use to it.

Nothing to see here....move along.

I think that if the U.S. were to require employers to verify that their employees were "legal," either as citizens or as aliens with green cards and be subject to major penalties for violating hiring regulations, then with so little in the way of work for the illegals, they would stop coming. Also, the same requirements would need to be put into place so that governments (city, county, state, and federal) could not provide benefits to anyone that was illegal.

After doing that, perhaps we could then "relax" some requirements for "legal" migration to the U.S.

From what I used to read some years ago, Mexico certainly has more stringent regulations than the U.S. does, even to the point of who could purchase land in Mexico.

 

[davek]

Whne I read this I think "was this Mexican soldiers making a political statement" or "are they stupid"? "Just stupid" is usually right, but I'll never know for sure.

 

[Snattlerake]

Well there were two guards on deck that had pistols with two rounds each, but they weren’t allowed to load them or fire unless they went to ask the captain for permission first. I’ve never served in the armed forces, but it’s absurd to me that US soldiers were stationed at the Mexican border practically unarmed. Why does it seem like our military always binge watches The Andy Griffith Show before setting rules of engagement in dangerous places?

This sadly is really nothing new. In the 70's at Ft. Sill the MP's there wore the standard military issued 1911 45's with flap holsters and lanyard except they didn't have loaded rounds in the chamber and could NOT carry them condition one. In fact, they had to call in to HQ to get permission to chamber a round. I do not know if that was SOP for all garrison MP's or just Ft. Sill.