Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on November 16, 2007, 02:49:43 AM
-
More tools put into place for a very large HAMMER?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58728
This does NOT look good for freedom, liberty, etc..........
and this just in..........
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58696
so much for the oath to uphold the Constitution?
-
OK... you have problem with the military helping out in the event of a Deomestic emergency?
With the restructuring of the military 30 years ago that made it so that the National gaurd would always be deployed in any large scale conflict... chances are the states wouldn't have enough Gaurd members at home to call on.
Following Katrina I saw the 82nd Airborne trucks heading that way day after day coming through here heading to New Orleans. I figure if the Ferderal gov't deploys the Gaurd troops to overseas combat, they should haev to fill teh gaps with active duty units.
-
what conceiveable emergency could exist that we would need the military involved?
please give examples cause I can't think of a one short of invasion. anything less than that and the government is the invaders.
lazs
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
youtube Naomi Wolf
Don't know if I completely agree with her but it certainly moved the brain cells around a bit
-
Every soldier I have ever met was at least as familiar with how to operate his shovel/ digging in tool as he was his personal weaponry...... good shovel handling skills are hard to come by in large numbers at short notice.
Need a thousand men with a shovel each? Who you gonna call? Why not the local Army barracks, at least you know the guys they send will be physically up to the task.
Down here the military is routinely heavily involved in any emergency relief situation.
Soldiers filling sandbags for levy banks are a common sight in places where floods are a problem.
As is salt lickblocks and bales of hay being dropped to marooned livestock from the back of C-130s and Caribous.
Or people being evacuated from their roof by Blackhawks and Hueys.
Army engineers and their heavy equipment are invaluable in a lot of emergency situations, like clearing highways and rail lines after a cyclone, laying temporary pontoon bridges where floods have made the usual route unpassable etc.
Oil spills, storm beached ships, ship wrecked round the world sailors....will all see heavy involvement by the Navy.
IMHO, having that sort of equipment and manpower available and NOT using it is just senseless.
As a by-the-way, it also makes for an excellent training and response time evaluation exercise for the units involved, trying men, machines and logistics setups under highly stressful real world conditions....all on the same pay they would have got for sitting back at barracks doing nothing. Win-Win situation.
Protecting and serving your nation and people doesn't always involve guns and bombs, sometimes a strong back , a helping hand and a can-do attitude goes a long way further in maintaining national security than an aggressive stance and shouldered weapon ever could.
How can all those extra helping hands and equipment be anything but an absolute Godsend in an emergency?
-
It can be argued that the federal response to Katrina is the best justification for not employing military resources as first responders. Not that there weren't isolated moments of individual heroism and even a successful group effort....or maybe two.
If we learned anything is that the military is not designed nor are the people trained for domestic emergency tasks. They are specifically tasked for military operations (or should be). That's what I prefer they concentrate on.
Short of a Mexican/Canadian invasion I prefer to keep our soldiers's attention focused outside our borders and their weapons pointed at our enemies.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Every soldier I have ever met was at least as familiar with how to operate his shovel/ digging in tool as he was his personal weaponry...... good shovel handling skills are hard to come by in large numbers at short notice.
Need a thousand men with a shovel each? Who you gonna call? Why not the local Army barracks, at least you know the guys they send will be physically up to the task.
Down here the military is routinely heavily involved in any emergency relief situation.
Soldiers filling sandbags for levy banks are a common sight in places where floods are a problem.
As is salt lickblocks and bales of hay being dropped to marooned livestock from the back of C-130s and Caribous.
Or people being evacuated from their roof by Blackhawks and Hueys.
Army engineers and their heavy equipment are invaluable in a lot of emergency situations, like clearing highways and rail lines after a cyclone, laying temporary pontoon bridges where floods have made the usual route unpassable etc.
Oil spills, storm beached ships, ship wrecked round the world sailors....will all see heavy involvement by the Navy.
IMHO, having that sort of equipment and manpower available and NOT using it is just senseless.
As a by-the-way, it also makes for an excellent training and response time evaluation exercise for the units involved, trying men, machines and logistics setups under highly stressful real world conditions....all on the same pay they would have got for sitting back at barracks doing nothing. Win-Win situation.
Protecting and serving your nation and people doesn't always involve guns and bombs, sometimes a strong back , a helping hand and a can-do attitude goes a long way further in maintaining national security than an aggressive stance and shouldered weapon ever could.
How can all those extra helping hands and equipment be anything but an absolute Godsend in an emergency?
Sounds good, if they are deployed in the U.S. all of them are unarmed, I have no problem with that.
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what conceiveable emergency could exist that we would need the military involved?
please give examples cause I can't think of a one short of invasion. anything less than that and the government is the invaders.
lazs
Well Lazs, think Katrina ... or if Mt. St Helen blew up again.. or if a tsunami hit hawaii.... there's also a 9/11 scenario.
The problem in some of the above scenarios is that military response (not national guard) is slow because of the ridiculous beaurocracy (however you spell that) that needs to go through before a single army unit can be ordered into action. For domestic emergencies the US military is like FEMA for all practical purposes. Heck the MEXICAN army beat the US military in bringing relief during the Katrina emergency.
The national guard on the other hand, can be called upon by local government and is more effective in getting people to the scene (altough they lack the resources of the active army).
I understand the reasons why it is a bad idea though.. merging the military with the country's leadership is a recipe for tyranny.
I would think it be better to have the active army be able to be called upon to SUPPORT of the national guard by the local government of each state.
-
no.. I don't want armed military "helping" me with a katrina...
Besides.. how can they "help" if they don't have any free hands because they are holding automatic weapons?
They want to help? leave the uniforms and guns in the barracks and come as civilians.
lazs
-
I can think of thousands of scenarios, both manmade and natural, where having the military on scene would be a very good thing. I can also think of just as many where it would NOT be a good thing. Case by case. Thats my motto.
-
"The Army is a broad sword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator - you do not want the Army in an American city." - The Siege 1998. It's not because the Army is evil, it's because their job is incompatible with domestic, non-battle work. The military is designed to deal with enemies. When the citizens become part of the problem, then you have citizens that are now considered enemies.
As for the "but they could help!" argument... Remember what the road to hell was paved with?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no.. I don't want armed military "helping" me with a katrina...
Besides.. how can they "help" if they don't have any free hands because they are holding automatic weapons?
lazs
If you ever experienced any of the wildfires in Southern California, you'd be happy to see those US Marines on the front lines fighting those fires. I know I sure was.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no.. I don't want armed military "helping" me with a katrina...
Besides.. how can they "help" if they don't have any free hands because they are holding automatic weapons?
They want to help? leave the uniforms and guns in the barracks and come as civilians.
lazs
I never said the active military has to come in with tanks and f16's to assist with the aftermath of a natural disaster. What the active army does have is a signficant ability to move material and personnel (transport aircraft, helicopters, army trucks) and can have the GI rifleman come in with no weapons and help with the efforts. If they come as civilians they cant bring along all the hardware the armed forces has which is needed at the disaster area.
-
This stuff has been in the works since Katrina. The reason being is all the bad publicity about how the federal government was so slow to respond with needed supplies and to help evacuate people before and after the storm.
Imagine Katrina if the feds had the ability to call up the military at a moments notice for use INSIDE the country. Thousands of trucks heading into the area hauling fuel, food, water, and personel before the storm hit to get people out. How many people died down there because they had no way out? The active duty components of the military can bring alot of heavy equipment and resorces to bear in a situation like that just on the logistical side of things. These are people that are trained to supply large groups of people on the fly.
In the case of Katrina with all the looting going on, who is going to keep the peace? The police left town. Why not bring in the military police? They are trained to handle law enforcement duties. Who's going to loot a store when you have a couple of soilders standing there with M-16's?
I see no problem with the military being called up for something like Katrina, or 9/11. The idea isn't to role in with tanks, APC's and Apache helicopters. It's to role in with trucks and alot of them filled with needed supplies, and personel to help the local population.
-
Hornet, what are your thoughts on the Posse Comitatus Act and the reason it was enacted?
-
A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 1585) requires the secretary of defense to prepare and submit to Congress by March 1, 2008, and each subsequent March 1 a plan to coordinate the use of the National Guard and members of the Armed Forces on active duty when responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters.
Little Rock Arkansas, circa 1957.
The President orders the National Guard to provide armed security for school children.
(http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/aa/eisenhower/aa_eisenhower_littlerock_1_e.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I see no problem with the military being called up for something like Katrina, or 9/11. The idea isn't to role in with tanks, APC's and Apache helicopters. It's to role in with trucks and alot of them filled with needed supplies, and personel to help the local population.
That's because you have little imagination and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.
I mean hey, if the military can do a better job than the police, why not replace the police with the military?
I mean gosh, they are just a bunch of good ol' boys that want to serve and protect their country right?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hornet, what are your thoughts on the Posse Comitatus Act and the reason it was enacted?
Posse Comitatus was enacted to prevent the military from being used as a full time law enforcement agency of the government. Prior to that act going into effect the military was used quite often in that role. Prime excample was when the military was used against WWI veterans in Washington DC who were camping out on the National Mall and refused to leave until they recieved benifits for their service. In that regard I agree with the reasons behind it, however to deny the military an active role in a disaster, natural or man made, is short sighted due to the resorces the military can bring to help.
-
It was in effect long before WW1
shamus
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's because you have little imagination and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.
I mean hey, if the military can do a better job than the police, why not replace the police with the military?
I mean gosh, they are just a bunch of good ol' boys that want to serve and protect their country right?
I understand fully the consequences of allowing the military un-restricted enforcement capablities. I have been directly involved with the military since I was born. I NEVER sugested that the military replace any local, state, or federal law enforecment agencies, but to deny the military any role in the event of a disaster is stupid.
In the event of anouther Katrina, wouldn't you rather see the military rolling into town with supplies, shelter, medical services, communications, and personel to establish some sort of control over the situation, or would you rather see fellow citizens floating dead in the water, starving in shelters with no supplies, or roasting in the sun trapped on roof tops?
I understand you paranoia, but in this day and age of instant TV coverage, and the public opinion it generates, do you REALLY believe that ANY president would be foolish enough to use the military in a hostile manner against American citizens inside our own borders? If you answer yes, well I feel sorry for you, and your TOTAL lack of understanding of what our soilders, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard personel sign up for. We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.
Use a little common sense folks.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.
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.
Come to think of it, not the ones that swore defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, yet still follow the orders of a President that is doing just about everything possible to make that document meaningless.
Besides those soldiers, I guess then yes, they do know the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one.
-
I completely agree with Lazs on this.
That would be like using a trained assassin for a baby sitter.
The US military is a killing machine... trained and practiced.
That is its mission.
Thus, it has never been used to any meaningful extent, nor trained, for domestic deployment on US soil dealing with serious domestic situations.
To do so was unconstitutional by law for very valid reasons.
Either train the US Military how to conduct themselves in such roles as domestic disaster deployment or send them to Iraq and Afganistan and let the National Guard come back home where they belong to do the job they were already trained to do domestically.
This thing is upside down.
The thought of armed US Army and Marine troops and M1 tanks patrolling Amercian streets enforcing martial law sends chills down my spine.
Don't dilute the professional killers and turn them into baby sitters... we need them as they are doing the job they are trained and intended to do.
If we don't have enough troops to allow the National Guard to be home where they belong then activate the draft and get troop levels where they need to be.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.
Originally posted by Thrawn
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.
Well thats an interesting point. I wonder if a soldier can refuse to be deployed to a combat zone citing that congress has not declared war. Not being a smartass just thinking out loud.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33 In the case of Katrina with all the looting going on, who is going to keep the peace? The police left town. Why not bring in the military police? They are trained to handle law enforcement duties. Who's going to loot a store when you have a couple of soilders standing there with M-16's?[/B]
The purpose of the military is to defend against enemies, both foreign and domestic. They are not, nor should they ever be used as law enforcement on American soil against American citizens. Ever. Period.
With that said, the military has a unique and indespensable ability to move vast quantites of supplies on relatively short notice. The trucks/planes/helicopters & their drivers/pilots/flightcrews probably dont much care if they are moving tons of ordinance to a war zone or tons of bottled water to a disaster area.
-
I don't guess anyone has heard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I guess it's easy to forget that for instance only the military had C-130 Hercules aircraft that could air lift massive quantities of supplies to areas where the roads and other infrastructure was destroyed. The 8th SoCom guys were flying stuff in before Katrina blew out.
As Ack Ack said, the Marines do a good job fighting fires.
I guess few people realize that while the front line guys may be the point of the sword, and the most efficient at combat, the vast majority of the military, while capable of combat, is mostly logistics and support. They are the best at making sure supplies get through, and things get fixed, under some of the worst circumstances.
The military isn't solely dedicated to destroying and killing everything they come across. And they're not all so stupid as to think the only thing they can do is kill people and blow stuff up.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I don't guess anyone has heard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I guess it's easy to forget that for instance only the military had C-130 Hercules aircraft that could air lift massive quantities of supplies to areas where the roads and other infrastructure was destroyed. The 8th SoCom guys were flying stuff in before Katrina blew out.
As Ack Ack said, the Marines do a good job fighting fires.
I guess few people realize that while the front line guys may be the point of the sword, and the most efficient at combat, the vast majority of the military, while capable of combat, is mostly logistics and support. They are the best at making sure supplies get through, and things get fixed, under some of the worst circumstances.
The military isn't solely dedicated to destroying and killing everything they come across. And they're not all so stupid as to think the only thing they can do is kill people and blow stuff up.
The military has Obstetricians and Dentists and Catholic Priests as well.
That isn't the point.
The point is deployment of combat troops.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The military has Obstetricians and Dentists and Catholic Priests as well.
That isn't the point.
The point is deployment of combat troops.
TIGERESS
As someone said, it all depends on the context. The Marines that were are sent to fight the fires were front line troops, some of them freshly arrived from combat tours in Iraq and Afhganistan.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
As someone said, it all depends on the context. The Marines that were are sent to fight the fires were front line troops, some of them freshly arrived from combat tours in Iraq and Afhganistan.
ack-ack
yanno i've been thinking this type of stateside redeployment might not be such a bad thing for the soldiers themselves.
be it doing something unarmed to help respond to the fires as is mentioned or in spending a short stint armed on our boarders.
recently read an article that 1/3 of our homeless now are made up of former vets. Largely due to psychological reasons
Something like this
Might make for a good winding down period for them psychologically before discharge to get them acclimated to being back home
(edited to include both armed and unarmed situations where the military could be used. I have no problem with placing our armed military along our borders.
but would be wholeheartedly against using the military as an armed police force on our streets short of the country being under military invasion from another country.
As uniformed but unarmed responders to disasters. I have no problem whatsoever.
There are lessons that can be learned in responding here that might be helpful on missions outside the US.
As well as lessons learned from experience in responding to disasters outside the US that might be helpful here.
-
I'm wondering if you people are getting the point here?
Some food for thought?
When a LAW is enacted whats wrong lookin at it like this...........
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
or like this..........
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers
or this.................
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster
maybe consider these...............
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
"Government never stops where you want it to. You don't get to write the laws or administer them. When you give the government the power to do what you want it to do, it will expand that power into areas where you don't want it to go." - James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry
"When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpittied sacrafice in a contemptible struggle"
I get really tired of the excuse makers comin out and sayin it's just fine to LET the Government take away a safe guard that was put in place to PROTECT us or trash a right. I find myself lookin at them in the following manner..............
"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
And this gets me goin....................
Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.
I find myself thinkn....................... ....
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” —Giordano Bruno
“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat
How about lookin at things with a NOT so trusting attitude?
ESPECIALLY when it comes to EVERYONES RIGHTS, LIBERTY, and FREEDOM?
What exactly is wrong with that approach?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Perhaps the MLRS can be equipped w/ fire retardant dispersal warheads. ;)
-
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
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.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Thrawn, I can't respond to your refutation so I will post a bunch of irrelevancies okay?
Sure thing Hornet.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
The majority of the army is logistics and support, not frontline troops. They can still haul food, water, and supplies to stricken cities.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn:
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
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5215/uncleslamnk6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
I think one of the concerns some may feel over this is a political perception of domestic enemy. There's a lot of rhetoric political extremists resort to in our country today (something I never thought would be as widespread or seriously taken as it is). "Traitor" is flung at anyone who disagrees with a rival party platform.
With all the non-binding house resolutions and senate resolutions over the last five years that are filled with nothing much more than political truth or dare under the presumption that a passed or failed NBR might or might not bring public shame to a rival party or party member, I'm not surprised this binding one causes concern. Especially riding on the coat-tails of one that made a point to mention what's unacceptable behavior politically (innocent enough in itself, it seemed, as much as it assured no individual rights would be subverted).
The political terrain of this country, at present, represents a battleground waiting to transform itself to a physical reality (much like it did before the civil war). It's almost as if both parties think they're positioning chesspieces to assure the whackos on the other side are easily dealt with should the other side decide politics is no longer an option.
Sounds like a great basis for a Clancy novel. Scary part is much of Clancy's stuff ended up being somewhat prophetic.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
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
I smell a rock.
-
as tigress said.. the military has priests soo...in an emergency.. they can send priests... they have doctors too.. send those.. send the equipment...
All the equipment except the guns. no arms for them... no power.. they should be under civilian command.
Those simple things would be enough to make them useful without being a threat to the people..
marines want to leave the guns at the barracks and help fight a fire? fine with me. just like convicts do now.. you don't put the warden in charge of fighting the fire tho.
You don't put a general in charge of a relief effort or "security".
lazs
-
Lazs you contradict yourself. You talk about people going 'feral' during times of emergency and preying on the weak and sick. Yet you don't want our military to be able to protect us during these times?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Lazs you contradict yourself. You talk about people going 'feral' during times of emergency and preying on the weak and sick. Yet you don't want our military to be able to protect us during these times?
Great and when a feral rioter fails to follow a command and is shot...
Well now , that will give lefties one more reason to hate the military.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Great and when a feral rioter fails to follow a command and is shot...
Well now , that will give lefties one more reason to hate the military.
:rolleyes:
Who cares if they have one more reason, they hate the military regardless. If they had been used large scale after Katrina the lefties would have complained about all the noise from the helicopters and transport jets, and someone would be trying to sue them because some private backed his duece an half over the only rose bush left standing after the storm.
-
aquashrimp.. I do not contacdict myself on this in any way.
I am quite capable of defending myself against the feral rioter.. so long as the lefties don't send in the military to go house to house and take away my second amendment rights.
If you believe that the military can defend you from other citizens then... why do we even need a second amendment right?
Just like we don't need guns because the police will stop the bad men from ever hurting us. right?
No.. I fear the armed military in such a situation far more than I fear the rioters.
lazs
-
All of these problems and notions will go away soon enough. We won't have to worry about them anymore. When the last of our rights are taken away and martial law is declared, all our problems will be solved. Of course I will be armed to the teeth and migrating to Ottawa Thrawn........LOL!:t
-
I might go south instead. you can do about anything in mexico if you have some money.. their laws are more like "suggestions" for the well to do.
I pray to gawd that things never get so bad here that canada politics look good.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I smell a rock.
I have no idea what that means... but if we aren't in agreement that is ok.
Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions.
Just out of curosity, what do you do for work Tumor?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I might go south instead. you can do about anything in mexico if you have some money.. their laws are more like "suggestions" for the well to do.
I pray to gawd that things never get so bad here that canada politics look good.
lazs
I have been thinking Canada if this thing keeps going the way it has been.
Seems a lot of people missed one hell of a lot in American History and Government classes relative to what I learned when I was in school.
Wow... perhaps it's a generational thing... I don't know... what they are teaching people these days, Lazs?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's because you have little imagination and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.
I mean hey, if the military can do a better job than the police, why not replace the police with the military?
The Military is setup to move large amounts of supplies in a timely fashion. Show me a police department that can do that.