Author Topic: Uh OH!!!!  (Read 1866 times)

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2007, 11:49:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by wrag

"Some people were put on this earth to be slaves. They're unhappy if they're not a slave, and they'll keep searching until they find someplace where they can be one."~~SM 101


 


The nit picky would edit to "fix "this quote by changing it to

"Some people were put on this earth to be slaves. They're unhappy if they're not a slave, and they'll keep searching until they find someplace where they can be one." D/s or M/s 101

The why's and wherefores would not be approperiate to this forum though ;)
And while the point is made. its hardly relivent to the topic at hand

But I aint that nit picky LOL
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 11:51:48 PM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2007, 01:01:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
You're getting your panties in a bunch over nothing especially new.  Governor's have always had the option of calling on the NG.  Looks to me like the evil do'ers aren't doing much more than allowing federal troops to supplement the NG in the event they are needed.  These are the same NG troops that become "active" when needed (reversal of roles given the subject)... so maybe once a NG unit is ever activated, they should be removed from the list of possible support in the event of an emergency?


...sheesh.


NGs are citizen soldiers, part time soldiers, by careful design and intent, not full-time professional soldiers.

Their temporary and limited use in combat is to be with that truth in mind...

This thing is upside down.

I think we have a current crop of politicians in power who are power drunk and are dangerous in their "end justifies the means" mentality.

Our freedom and liberty protections are more important than many realize I fear. Once gone they will not be back.

"You don't know what you have till it’s gone..." by then it's too late.

TIGERESS
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 01:05:26 AM by Tigeress »

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2007, 01:26:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tigeress
NGs are citizen soldiers, part time soldiers, by careful design and intent, not full-time professional soldiers.

Their temporary and limited use in combat is to be with that truth in mind...

This thing is upside down.

I think we have a current crop of politicians in power who are power drunk and are dangerous in their "end justifies the means" mentality.

Our freedom and liberty protections are more important than many realize I fear. Once gone they will not be back.

"You don't know what you have till it’s gone..." by then it's too late.

TIGERESS


I was in the Oklahoma National Guard for 3.5 years before I got out to go active duty in the Coast Guard. My MOS was 13M-20. That is the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) i.e. the biggest and baddest killer on the battlefield. I was NEVER trained for peace time operations only combat. The ONLY differance between the National Guard and the regular Army is that the NG only does it part time. Calling the NG citizen soilders as if the regular Army soilders aren't is an affront to everyone who serves, active, reserve, or guard. If you wear the uniform it doesn't matter what component you serve in, your FIRST priority is to the COUNTRY as a whole.

You people are missing the entire point. The military is there to serve the PEOPLE of this country. The citizens of this country. We swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect it against ALL enemies foreign and domestic

So in the event of a natural disater, why shouldn't the military be involved?

And Thrawn, before you decide to comment again about my position about this subject, why don't you take your bellybutton out of Canada and become a citizen of MY country, serve your time in OUR military and then come to me and talk about it. Until then your opinion doesn't matter one bit to me. Your not a citizen of MY country so keep  opinons to yourself when it comes to how MY country chooses to govern OURSELVES.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2007, 01:32:19 AM »
Perhaps the MLRS can be equipped w/ fire retardant dispersal warheads.  ;)
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2007, 02:45:00 AM »
I mean no disrespect, promise.

The NG, IMV, is both a back up as is the reserves and also a power of each state government... not federal. A power to apply in domestic situations where the Federal Armed Services are not permitted by law to be applied.

Correct me if I am wrong.

BTW, I am an AF brat; Father was a 30 year career man and veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam... respect for the service and those who serve runs in my family who have served for three generations.

Thank you for your service, it is highly appreciated and respected.

The problem is not the men and women of the armed forces... the problem is the politicians who, when given too much power, have the legal ability to abuse that power.

You are sworn, took an oath, to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. He/She has legal limits on his/her Presidental powers and for very valid reasons.

The thread is about granted political powers and its limits and reasons for those limits.

TIGERESS


Quote
Originally posted by Hornet33
I was in the Oklahoma National Guard for 3.5 years before I got out to go active duty in the Coast Guard. My MOS was 13M-20. That is the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) i.e. the biggest and baddest killer on the battlefield. I was NEVER trained for peace time operations only combat. The ONLY differance between the National Guard and the regular Army is that the NG only does it part time. Calling the NG citizen soilders as if the regular Army soilders aren't is an affront to everyone who serves, active, reserve, or guard. If you wear the uniform it doesn't matter what component you serve in, your FIRST priority is to the COUNTRY as a whole.

You people are missing the entire point. The military is there to serve the PEOPLE of this country. The citizens of this country. We swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect it against ALL enemies foreign and domestic

So in the event of a natural disater, why shouldn't the military be involved?

And Thrawn, before you decide to comment again about my position about this subject, why don't you take your bellybutton out of Canada and become a citizen of MY country, serve your time in OUR military and then come to me and talk about it. Until then your opinion doesn't matter one bit to me. Your not a citizen of MY country so keep  opinons to yourself when it comes to how MY country chooses to govern OURSELVES.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 03:01:17 AM by Tigeress »

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2007, 07:14:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hornet33
Thrawn, I can't respond to your refutation so I will post a bunch of irrelevancies okay?



Sure thing Hornet.

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
the National Guard
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2007, 04:17:12 PM »
From -> http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx

TIGERESS


About the National Guard

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 04:29:02 PM by Tigeress »

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2007, 04:47:06 PM »
This is all just my opinion so bear with me...

I see a growing tendency by the federal government (Administrative Branch) to misuse the NG of each of the 50 States and slowly federalize the 50 National Guards instead of drafting enough people into the federal armed services to get the job done outside the United States.

We need a 50 State National Guard as a 50 State National Guard for state by state domestic missions who are specifically trained and equipped for such missions and are guarding their own state's people and property.

We also need federal armed services for non-domestic missions.

In the event of a declaration of all out war the state militias (National Guard of each State) would join forces with the federal armed forces.

The two are being functionally merged into one and that is what is so scary.

The role of guarding one's own state's citizens and their property is VERY DIFFERENT than the application and role of the federal armed services.

In view of Islamic terrorism threats to domestic life and property, perhaps the command and control structure of each State National Guard needs to be adjusted and streamlined between each of the states and between each state and the federal government.

Unless the United States homeland is attacked and invaded by the armed forces of a foreign government, I don't see justification for the application of federal combat troops in a domestic situation.

There are valid reasons the United States is structured as 50 Independent yet United States, united for common goals federally, but this country is not one big state with one single big government controlling everything there is to control.

A case in point where federal combat troops were used to defend against domestic enemies was the American Civil War.

In a case where the federal government goes out of control the individual states must defend themselves from the federal government. In that situation the 50 State National Guard would defend against misused and misapplied federal combat troops. This is virtually an unthinkable scenario but the founding fathers thought about it and for just cause.

Why do you think it is that the United States Constitution provides for freedom to bear arms? To provide the National Guard, the state militias, with arms to protect against a federal government that has gone rabid.

These checks and balances exist because of lessons learned in the past. To protect the country from itself in the event one or more misguided political leaders or military leaders goes against the interests and welfare of the collective people of this country.

This is also a reason I choose not to be a political partisan; I am a middle of the road Moderate. I view political extremism as dangerous, thus I vote in a way to maintain a power balance between the two political parties not wanting either political party power base to have too much political control of the federal government relative to the other one.

If a few of you think women don't pay attention in history classes, think again.

TIGERESS
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 06:43:44 PM by Tigeress »

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2007, 05:40:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tigeress


Unless the United States homeland is attacked and invaded by the armed forces of a foreign government, I don't see justification for the application of federal combat troops in a domestic situation.



TIGERESS


The US Marines were effective during the riots in Los Angeles and are credited to being the major force in stopping most of the violence because the California National Guard at the time was not up to the task nor the local/state law enforcement agencies.  The US Marines are also regularly used to help fight the wild fires we have in Southern California and in other states as well.  I

The Army Corps of Engineers is also another good example of the military assisting domestically.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2007, 05:48:44 PM »
The majority of the army is logistics and support, not frontline troops.  They can still haul food, water, and supplies to stricken cities.

Offline USRanger

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10325
      • BoP Home
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2007, 09:02:39 PM »
Originally posted by Thrawn:
Quote
Well, maybe not the ones at Abu Ghraib anyways....or the ones that decided to fight in an invasion that wasn't prefaced by declaration of war by congress.


Canada is next you seal clubbing Sally.  Just what would you know about an individual soldier's "decision" to invade?  Was there a secret yea or nay vote throughout the military that my unit was not invited to?  As an "invader"(and damn proud of it!) surely I was asked personally by one of Bush's advisers if it was o.k. if my unit went over there.  Right?

Bomb Ottawa 2008
Axis vs Allies Staff Member
☩ JG11 Sonderstaffel ☩
Flying 'Black[Death] 10' ☩JG11☩

Only the Proud, Only the Strong Ne Desit Virtus

Offline AWMac

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9251
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2007, 09:18:53 PM »
Thrawn
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Oh PahLeez teach me more of the American oh enlightened one.

Mac

Just like a frikken Canduhian.

Offline Shamus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3583
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2007, 10:27:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The US Marines were effective during the riots in Los Angeles and are credited to being the major force in stopping most of the violence because the California National Guard at the time was not up to the task nor the local/state law enforcement agencies.  The US Marines are also regularly used to help fight the wild fires we have in Southern California and in other states as well.  I

The Army Corps of Engineers is also another good example of the military assisting domestically.

ack-ack


So what...the last thing you want running around here judging your behavior is a Marine :)

shamus
one of the cats

FSO Jagdgeschwader 11

Offline Shamus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3583
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2007, 10:30:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Thrawn
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Oh PahLeez teach me more of the American oh enlightened one.

Mac

Just like a frikken Canduhian.
[/QUOTE

Mac..] You are a Dud:)

shamus
one of the cats

FSO Jagdgeschwader 11

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Uh OH!!!!
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2007, 10:53:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by USRanger
As an "invader"(and damn proud of it!) surely I was asked personally by one of Bush's advisers if it was o.k. if my unit went over there.  Right?


No, but you could have refused the order.  


PS:  That's right, "invader", that's the word used to describe someone that invades a country.