End National Guard overseas deployment

[gabosaurus]

The Govinator was on TV today, actually making sense for a change. With wildfires raging throughout California, and further natural disasters always a threat in the summer, Ah-nold wants to retain control of ALL the state's National Guard troops. He encouraged other governors to do the same.

I totally agree. Overseas deployment should be restricted to our active military. The National Guard should be restricted to protecting our country and helping out in times of crisis.
How could anyone value helping other countries above our own?

[5stringJeff]

I agree that the National Guard should not be deployed outside our borders. The Active Army and the Army Reserve are our expeditionary forces.

[Yurt]

I agree that the National Guard should not be deployed outside our borders. The Active Army and the Army Reserve are our expeditionary forces.

jeff, what power or under what power, can the president order national troops overseas? i don't understand in the current situation how the national guard continues to serve 1. even a short time, 2. a very long time, over seas when national guard is not ordinary a full time job except when the nation/homeland is in dire need.

[rppearso]

The way you stop it is if no one joins. Then when they have no people they will be forced to do something about it. I think it ought to be a national constitutional amendment, because even if some governors got together what are they going to do about it, AFbomb loader posted an act passed that changed the milita to national guard and enabled the president to "activate" them to active duty to deploy. I dont think I will see that happen in my life time unless the guard has SEVERE shortages of recruits and I mean missing there goals by 50-60% regardless of reducing the "required" numbers to make it appear everything is ok.

[rppearso]

jeff, what power or under what power, can the president order national troops overseas? i don't understand in the current situation how the national guard continues to serve 1. even a short time, 2. a very long time, over seas when national guard is not ordinary a full time job except when the nation/homeland is in dire need.

Its because congress keeps signing the checks. I dont even think there is a formal declaration of war right now to even authorize the president to deploy ANY troops beyond so many days which is way past now. But are you a a private going to say that to your sgt or are you as the sgt going to say that to the cpt or will the cpt say that to the col and the generals are not going to stand up to the president because he is there commander in chief. If congress does not step up as the designated check and balance the president is effectively a dictator. If no one joins or those that have joined leave under there own authority you will see a lot of changes, the problem is when only a hand full leave it gives the others still in with authority and a power trip to play the whole put out a warrant blah blah blah, but if there were leaving in droves as protest to the presidents actions you would see things change. The problem is the military uses extreme scare tactics to maintain control and to ensure no one thinks for themselves. It is the responsibility of the congress to tell the president no, your an idiot and we are not going to allow this to continue. The problem now is you have a majority democrat but its not a quorum so they can only do so much, I think we will see more republicans removed from office in the next round of various states national representative elections. In the end it does not really matter as long as you trust in Jesus.

[Sitarro]

The Govinator was on TV today, actually making sense for a change. With wildfires raging throughout California, and further natural disasters always a threat in the summer, Ah-nold wants to retain control of ALL the state's National Guard troops. He encouraged other governors to do the same.

I totally agree. Overseas deployment should be restricted to our active military. The National Guard should be restricted to protecting our country and helping out in times of crisis.
How could anyone value helping other countries above our own?

So, you now agree that the National guard is important to the security of our country? Does that include the Air National Guard?

[5stringJeff]

jeff, what power or under what power, can the president order national troops overseas? i don't understand in the current situation how the national guard continues to serve 1. even a short time, 2. a very long time, over seas when national guard is not ordinary a full time job except when the nation/homeland is in dire need.

Here's how the law stands now: the President can call up to 200,000 reservists/NG for up to 270 days without approval from Congress. And IIRC, any time the President wants to call up a National Guard unit for a federal emergency, such as a war, he is authorized to do so. Army policy is that the active, reserves, and NG are "one Army." But, if one looks at the reasons why they were formed in the first place, it's clear that they were not meant to be that way.

[Nukeman]

Its because congress keeps signing the checks. I dont even think there is a formal declaration of war right now to even authorize the president to deploy ANY troops beyond so many days which is way past now. But are you a a private going to say that to your sgt or are you as the sgt going to say that to the cpt or will the cpt say that to the col and the generals are not going to stand up to the president because he is there commander in chief. If congress does not step up as the designated check and balance the president is effectively a dictator. If no one joins or those that have joined leave under there own authority you will see a lot of changes, the problem is when only a hand full leave it gives the others still in with authority and a power trip to play the whole put out a warrant blah blah blah, but if there were leaving in droves as protest to the presidents actions you would see things change. The problem is the military uses extreme scare tactics to maintain control and to ensure no one thinks for themselves. It is the responsibility of the congress to tell the president no, your an idiot and we are not going to allow this to continue. The problem now is you have a majority democrat but its not a quorum so they can only do so much, I think we will see more republicans removed from office in the next round of various states national representative elections. In the end it does not really matter as long as you trust in Jesus.
My God man you are a "broken record". Get over it already!!!! Quit your bitching and MOVE ON..... :poke:

[gabosaurus]

This is something that needs to be changed. The National Guard should be solely for the protection of the United States. Sending them overseas is weakening the defense of and aid to this country.

[rppearso]

Here's how the law stands now: the President can call up to 200,000 reservists/NG for up to 270 days without approval from Congress. And IIRC, any time the President wants to call up a National Guard unit for a federal emergency, such as a war, he is authorized to do so. Army policy is that the active, reserves, and NG are "one Army." But, if one looks at the reasons why they were formed in the first place, it's clear that they were not meant to be that way.

The question is was there ever a declaration of war? It seems declarations of war dont mean much, we did not even have one for vietnam so we are repeating the same crap again. I think Marine82 is a simpleton, why dont you engage in the debate hill billy.

[Sitarro]

This is something that needs to be changed. The National Guard should be solely for the protection of the United States. Sending them overseas is weakening the defense of and aid to this country.

So you do feel the the National Guard are an integral part of the protection of The United States. Why would you denigrate President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, a very important part of the protection of the country? The biggest threats would be from the air, typically.

[Nukeman]

The question is was there ever a declaration of war? It seems declarations of war dont mean much, we did not even have one for vietnam so we are repeating the same crap again. I think Marine82 is a simpleton, why dont you engage in the debate hill billy.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that YOU are mistaking two different people here. YOU refer to Marine82 while responding to 5stringsjeff, I am quite sure your are not saying Jeff is a simpleton because if you are your are much dumber than even I give you credit for......

[5stringJeff]

The question is was there ever a declaration of war? It seems declarations of war dont mean much, we did not even have one for vietnam so we are repeating the same crap again.

There has been no declaration of war since WWII, and I don't foresee there being one anytime soon. But Congress has authorized the use of force in every major conflict (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Iraq).

[gabosaurus]

What does any of that have to do with the original question?

[Psychoblues]

As an old Air Force vet that saw time in Korea, Viet Nam, Japan, Phillipines and Australia and an old Air National Guard troop that got activated for and served time on Title 10 orders in Grenada, Panama, Saudi Arabia (Persian Gulf I) as well as title 32 missions in Germany, Italy, Spain, Panama, Japan, Korea, Diego Garcia, and countless stateside training missions, I have no objection whatsoever for National Guard troops being mobilized for whatever mission the President and the state governors can agree upon. Get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!

The National Guard of the gwb type and years is long gone and for very damned good reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rppearso]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that YOU are mistaking two different people here. YOU refer to Marine82 while responding to 5stringsjeff, I am quite sure your are not saying Jeff is a simpleton because if you are your are much dumber than even I give you credit for......

I was refering to a neg rep hillbilly82 left me regarding this post.

[rppearso]

As an old Air Force vet that saw time in Korea, Viet Nam, Japan, Phillipines and Australia and an old Air National Guard troop that got activated for and served time on Title 10 orders in Grenada, Panama, Saudi Arabia (Persian Gulf I) as well as title 32 missions in Germany, Italy, Spain, Panama, Japan, Korea, Diego Garcia, and countless stateside training missions, I have no objection whatsoever for National Guard troops being mobilized for whatever mission the President and the state governors can agree upon. Get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!

The National Guard of the gwb type and years is long gone and for very damned good reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think im just better off not in the military at all that way I don't truly have to worry about it except to debate it.

[AFbombloader]

I think im just better off not in the military at all that way I don't truly have to worry about it except to debate it.

That statement applies to a lot of people. Some are made for the life and some are not. Sometimes, like in your case you have to try it out to realize it.

As long as the Army and Air National Guard are being designed into the defense plans of the nation, not the states, they will be up for international duty. They are a key component of the military. They are the "National" Guard, not the CA or TN Guard. Yes, they fall under the gov's of the state, but that is trumped by the pres and congress.

AF:salute:

[rppearso]

That statement applies to a lot of people. Some are made for the life and some are not. Sometimes, like in your case you have to try it out to realize it.

As long as the Army and Air National Guard are being designed into the defense plans of the nation, not the states, they will be up for international duty. They are a key component of the military. They are the "National" Guard, not the CA or TN Guard. Yes, they fall under the gov's of the state, but that is trumped by the pres and congress.

AF:salute:

Its just to bad we dont have any orgainized milita's left because they were all converted to national guard. Because of that fact im glad the supreme court recognized the 2nd amendment as an individual right and not a milita's right since militas dont exist anymore. Of course that does not stop them from banning the guns that really matter when shit hits the fan.

[5stringJeff]

Militias do exist, but not all of them are organized.

[Sitarro]

I find it just a bit funny that the very same person that goes on and on about how our soldiers aren't policemen want them back hear to play firemen.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Psychoblues]

I find it a bit funny that you missed the point entirely, zero!!!!!!!!



I find it just a bit funny that the very same person that goes on and on about how our soldiers aren't policemen want them back hear to play firemen.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

But, it ain't the first for you, is it?

[CockySOB]

This is something that needs to be changed. The National Guard should be solely for the protection of the United States. Sending them overseas is weakening the defense of and aid to this country.

We agree.

Why does that statement make me feel... icky? :-) Oh well, stranger things have happened in this world I guess.

[rppearso]

I find it just a bit funny that the very same person that goes on and on about how our soldiers aren't policemen want them back hear to play firemen.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That is because the entire concept of standing armies got all messed up through the history of this nation. A well oraganized Milita would be a group of farmers or iorn workers or who ever that would train once in a while and come together in a crisis and in this day in time would need to be state funded (for things like helicopters and heavy equipment) but never the less the milita was representitive of the community and not subjected to overseas deployments. Now what you have is some sgt that when not deployed sits around and hazes privates calls it training and collects a pay check. Also they mix gang bangers from the inner cities and country boys and its all just suppost to work, commradery can not be forced it has to be born out of commonality. Basicly the national guard is like a pissed in version of a milita, the piss being the ex active duty guys who think everyone in the national guard should be professional soldiers when they are not nor were they ever ment to be but this mentality can ruin the commradary of the people who represent the community and the over seas deployments are not acceptable for someone who has another roll in the community, its not as seamless as the commercials make it out to be, 24 month deployments mess up the community, jobs, marriages, relationships, etc.

[Psychoblues]

Wow, I am shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!





We agree.

Why does that statement make me feel... icky? :-) Oh well, stranger things have happened in this world I guess.

The Democrats used to oppose sending national guard troops overseas (gwb certainly used that up to the freakin' limit!!!!!!) while the pukes insisted it was prudent!!!!!!!

Actually, I agreed with the pukes back then. I can't help but see a recent and idiotic reversal of stance. Maybe all that volunteer crap is just that, volunteer crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sitarro]

Hey, I'm all in favor of having them back here, not to fight fires or place sand bags but to stand point on the border with plenty of ammo and shoot to kill orders.

[Psychoblues]

On the other hand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Hey, I'm all in favor of having them back here, not to fight fires or place sand bags but to stand point on the border with plenty of ammo and shoot to kill orders.

You really get confused about a lot of things, don't you, zero?

[rppearso]

This thread was really getting good and then it pettered out into nonsense, to bad.

[Hobbit]

In addition to the hilarity already pointed out of the same people who once said that the National Guard wasn't really serving are now talking about how vital they are to the defense of the nation, I also find it hilarious that the same people who said that we, the plebeians, didn't need guns because we weren't threatened by anything (the old 'marauding redcoats' arguments) are now saying that we absolutely must have the National Guard home NOW to defend us from the threats that only exist when they aren't trying to ban guns.

[SpidermanTUba]

The Govinator was on TV today, actually making sense for a change. With wildfires raging throughout California, and further natural disasters always a threat in the summer, Ah-nold wants to retain control of ALL the state's National Guard troops. He encouraged other governors to do the same.

I totally agree. Overseas deployment should be restricted to our active military. The National Guard should be restricted to protecting our country and helping out in times of crisis.
How could anyone value helping other countries above our own?



That would be great but the only way we can do that and keep starting wars like we've been doing lately is with a draft

[rppearso]

That would be great but the only way we can do that and keep starting wars like we've been doing lately is with a draft

Having a draft does not get you out of the financial consequences of having a war thats why rome had to take the wealth of the conquored nations in order to fuel its expansion, if you dont do that you will go bankrupt.

[Said1]

Having a draft does not get you out of the financial consequences of having a war thats why rome had to take the wealth of the conquored nations in order to fuel its expansion, if you dont do that you will go bankrupt.

Irregardless, you still need people. (did I get that right DMP)

[Psychoblues]

The exposure to international living and politics for our troops, ALL OF OUR TROOPS, is always more adviseable than the one legged approach of only familiar environmental training and mission assignment. Understanding that should be a prerequisite to anyone taking a position of troop endeavors.

But, that's just what I think: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[rppearso]

Irregardless, you still need people. (did I get that right DMP)

It isent going to matter if you cant pay your people. People dont work for free. Once you start invading AND occupying nations it is no longer self defense of your own nation and in this situation there better be plunder for the additional sweat involved with painstaking task of occupying a nation otherwise its like starting a business and giving away your product for free. What the hell is the point of 24 month deployments if you are not walking away with a pocket full of gold or cash so you can reap the benefits when you return to rome or a cut of the oil profits from the producers when you cut the iraqi's throats and take the oil by force. This whole situation is total nonsense, why would someone invest this much time and money without a hell of a return on there investment. Just remember when rome fell because of this similar stupid nonsense there was no where to go and the world was plunged into the dark ages. I just pray that I can live and die in a great nation before our politicians and our military give it all away to a bunch of Neanderthals in 3rd world nations because we dont have the balls to take what we need by force even though we spend billions of dollars on our military.