US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-16-2006, 01:35 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Hurricane Season begins June 1!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 01:55 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its very simple, there are 440,000 troops in the National Guard. The President has requested 6,000 troops to be sent to the southern border. Right now there are only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq. Half of the National Guard has yet to even be deployed to Iraq a single time. The National Guard can be called up at any time and be deployed for an indefinite time period if the situation requires it. Unfortunately, it appears that there are Republicans and Democrats that don't understand these very basic facts.

again, your basic facts have no context or any real understanding of the issue. reality isn't a math problem.

numbers sound great, but the reality is that there are 50 states in the US, and my understanding is that there are only 350,000 National Guard troops. there is no question at all that Iraq has stressed the active-duty Army and caused it to leans more heavily on the Guard. one of these results is that the Guard is having difficulty recruiting and retain troops -- especially given Iraq's unpopularity and the growing understanding that Saddam and Iraq did not present any threat whatsoever to the American homeland.

many states that deal with natural disasters on a frequent basis and rely on the National Guard for relief are worried. in many states, over half the National Guard are in Iraq, and many who have come back from Iraq have left the National Guard due to longer than expected and far more dangerous than anticipated deployments. the idea of the National Guard, originally, was not to fight America's wars but to protect the homeland itself. these are not career officers. these are citizen-soldiers, weekend warriors, and their families and spouses do not react well to repeated deployments into combat zones.

are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have hurricanes in the gulf to deal with. fires out west to deal with. flooding in new england. snowstorms by the end of the year. possible earthquakes in california. it's not a matter of numbers of troops, but of their skill sets and levels of experience. 440,000 or 350,000, doesn't matter. what matters is who is on call, especially the most highly trained "first responders," and their collective abilities, as well as what equipment the Guard has at their disposal and what equipment remains in Iraq. also, many members of the police and fire departments are in Iraq and not at home serving in the Guard, further weakening a state's ability to respond to disaster.

the endless exploitation of the Guard in Iraq and in political stunts such as this is going to do even more long term damage to the National Guard and ultimately make us less safe for the next Katrina or the next colossal blizzard in New England or when the "big one" hits San Francisco.

and in Vietnam, only 9,000 National Guardsmen were deployed.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 02:01 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 07:05 AM
What I don't understand is why the National Guard troops would be sent to the border for two week rotations. Where is the continuity? How can you provide support if you know nothing about the area or what exactly you're supposed to be doing there? What about building working relationships with the border patrol?

To me it seems like a political stunt to say "look we're actually doing something" when in reality doing nothing might actually be a better alternative than the proposed plan. I just don't see how this will be effective at all.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 02:18 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail

To me it seems like a political stunt to say "look we're actually doing something" when in reality doing nothing might actually be a better alternative than the proposed plan. I just don't see how this will be effective at all.

Ding, ding, ding!!! This is exactly it. 2 week rotations and new training, doesn't make any sense. It's their to appease the men and women in the guard and those that are concerned our military is worn thin.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-16-2006, 02:22 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its very simple, there are 440,000 troops in the National Guard. The President has requested 6,000 troops to be sent to the southern border. Right now there are only 30,000 National Guard Troops in Iraq. Half of the National Guard has yet to even be deployed to Iraq a single time. The National Guard can be called up at any time and be deployed for an indefinite time period if the situation requires it. Unfortunately, it appears that there are Republicans and Democrats that don't understand these very basic facts.
You can write those in congress and in the guard your math problem.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-16-2006, 08:43 PM   #21
Refugee
 
4U2Play's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,791
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[B]are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have blah blah blah...

Um.

We could recruit and train more National Guardsmen.

We don't need to touch the current numbers.

This seems like a difficult concept for some our members to grasp, so please allow me to illustrate:


You have two U2 concert tickets, one for yourself and one for your girlfriend.

Your brother now says he wants to go, too, but you don't have an extra ticket for him... what do you do?

Do you:

A. give your brother your ticket?

B. give your brother your girlfriend's ticket?

C. buy another ticket?


The correct answer is C.

I majored in math, so please ask me any other complicated adding/subtracting questions you may have
__________________
4U2Play is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:00 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy?

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



again, your basic facts have no context or any real understanding of the issue. reality isn't a math problem.

numbers sound great, but the reality is that there are 50 states in the US, and my understanding is that there are only 350,000 National Guard troops. there is no question at all that Iraq has stressed the active-duty Army and caused it to leans more heavily on the Guard. one of these results is that the Guard is having difficulty recruiting and retain troops -- especially given Iraq's unpopularity and the growing understanding that Saddam and Iraq did not present any threat whatsoever to the American homeland.

many states that deal with natural disasters on a frequent basis and rely on the National Guard for relief are worried. in many states, over half the National Guard are in Iraq, and many who have come back from Iraq have left the National Guard due to longer than expected and far more dangerous than anticipated deployments. the idea of the National Guard, originally, was not to fight America's wars but to protect the homeland itself. these are not career officers. these are citizen-soldiers, weekend warriors, and their families and spouses do not react well to repeated deployments into combat zones.

are there enough National Guard troops to help President Bush play political stunts to whip up the xenophobia in his base and "secure" the border? sure. is this a wise use of troops? absolutely not. we have hurricanes in the gulf to deal with. fires out west to deal with. flooding in new england. snowstorms by the end of the year. possible earthquakes in california. it's not a matter of numbers of troops, but of their skill sets and levels of experience. 440,000 or 350,000, doesn't matter. what matters is who is on call, especially the most highly trained "first responders," and their collective abilities, as well as what equipment the Guard has at their disposal and what equipment remains in Iraq. also, many members of the police and fire departments are in Iraq and not at home serving in the Guard, further weakening a state's ability to respond to disaster.

the endless exploitation of the Guard in Iraq and in political stunts such as this is going to do even more long term damage to the National Guard and ultimately make us less safe for the next Katrina or the next colossal blizzard in New England or when the "big one" hits San Francisco.

and in Vietnam, only 9,000 National Guardsmen were deployed.
The United States has 476,300 troops in the National Guard. Of that number, 367,100 are in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 109,200 are in the Airforce National Guard (ANG).

The United States Army has been structured in such a way since 1973 that it cannot go to war without support and logistical units from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve deploying with the active force. In fact, there are some support and logistical services that the active Army needs that can only be provided by the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

The Army National Guard has armored, mechanized and infantry combat brigades just like the Active Army does. Your Armored Army National Guard brigade has the same number of Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and supporting Artillery as an Active Armored Army brigade. The chief purpose of these Army National Guard Brigades is to fight in the nations wars if needed! These units spend their time training in 68 ton main battle tanks and other highly advanced weapon systems. They have to meet minimum standards in order to be able to operate and keep up with active Army Brigades on the battlefield, which they may have to support or coordinate with in battle.

Sorry, but these units don't spend their limited training time getting ready to put out a fire, training to respond to a flood, or some other natural disaster. They spend their time on large tank ranges, sending rounds down range. Coordinating their movements, practicing for urban warfare, and training for other various situations that they might find in any battlefield situation.

The National Guard is designed just like the Active Army is in structure of the units and there are in fact some support and logistical units that the Active Army needs for war deployments which are only found in the National Guard or Reserve. The National Guard's main purpose, and the one they train for, is war. Every contigency that the Active Army could face, the Army National Guard must train to face as well.

When National Guard units are not deployed overseas or have another pressing assignment, they can be used in natural disasters. Even Active Army units are used in natural disasters. Several units from the 82nd Airborne Division were used in New Orleans last year.

States know that almost every member of their National Guard could be deployed overseas at any time. Knowing that, it is up to them to organize the states Fire and Police services so that they can respond to a crises. That means knowing ahead of time who or who isn't going to be potentially deployed overseas because of National Guard or Reserve service, and planning accordingly. The Federal Government must also operate knowing that the use of the National Guard and Reserve in certain area's of the country can be heavily impacted if the nation is involved in a war overseas.

Make no mistake about it, the National Guard's first purpose is fighting wars. That is what they are equiped to do and that is what they train for. This is not George Bush's or Rumsfelds design, but it is how the National Guard has been structured for decades. Whether its training to fight Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces in the plains and forest of Germany during the Cold War, or preparing for possible deployment to the Persian Gulf to meet the countries security needs there, the National Guard prepares for it. National Guard units in the 1990s actually took over much of the Active Army's Peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo. They can certainly help in natural disasters in the United States just like the Active Army has done, but that is not their primary mission.



Now here are some facts about recruiting in this current recruiting year which started October 1, 2005. Here is how both the Active and Reserve military components have done in meeting the required recruiting numbers for this year to date. October 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006.

Active Duty Recruiting:

Army 104%
Navy 100%
Marine 101%
Air Force 101%



Reserve Forces Recruiting:

Army National Guard 103%
Army Reserve 95%
Navy Reserve 84%
Marine Corps Reserve 100%
Air National Guard 86%
Air Force Reserve 105%


The high rate of retention in the Active Army is one of the reasons for past shortfalls in recruiting for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have, year after year for the past several decades, relied on members of the Active Army who have completed their active duty requirement and then spent the rest of their total service requirement in the reserves, in order to meet their required recruiting levels. For this year though, the Army National Guard is ahead of its required recruiting level. Its interesting to note that every service that deploys ground combat units, that being the Active Army and Marines, Army National Guard and Marine Corp Reserve have met or exceeded their required recruiting levels so far this year. Two of the three services that have not met their goals so far this year, Navy Reserve and Air National Guard typically do not deploy personal inside Iraq, except in rare circumstances.

By comparison, in both 1998 and 1999, during the middle of peacetime during the Clinton administration, nearly all of the above services failed to meet their recruiting goals by the end of the year. In fact, several of the Active components were several thousand members short.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:17 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:05 AM
^ has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i was talking about, and it would be great if you could cite what you just cut-and-pased.

anyway, i find your numbers highly dubious ... could they possibly have come from here?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060511.html

if you can't trust the White House for reliable numbers, who can you trust?




as reality (and not military propaganda) goes ...

in 2004:

[q]Army Guard misses recruiting goal
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Army National Guard has fallen significantly behind its recruiting goal one month into the military's new fiscal year, continuing a downward slide that began in 2003 and could make it harder for the Pentagon to find enough troops for the war in Iraq.
In October, the Army Guard recruited 2,546 enlistees, more than 30% below its target of 3,675.

The numbers do not bode well for the Army Guard, which missed its 2004 recruiting target of 56,000 enlistees by nearly 7,000. This year, the 350,000-member Guard has an even larger goal of 65,000, in part to make up for last year.

The chief reason for the shortfall is a downturn in recruits with military experience, men and women who leave the active-duty Army but sign up for Guard duty that usually involves a weekend a month and two weeks during the summer.

In past years, these "prior service" soldiers accounted for about half of all Guard recruits. Now, however, many soldiers leaving active duty are reluctant to join because of the enormous new demands on America's part-time military, including active duty missions that can last up to 18 months.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are auxiliary forces that back up the active-duty military. Most troops serve part-time, but in the last three years the Pentagon has called up thousands for active-duty tours. Guard and Reserve soldiers now make up more than 40% of the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-recruit_x.htm

[/q]


in 2005:

[q]National Guard Misses Recruiting Goal
Associated Press
July 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said Monday.

The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but signed up only 4,337, a 14 percent shortfall, according to statistics released Monday by the Pentagon. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...071205,00.html

[/q]



thus far, in 2006:

[q]Army hits recruiting goal; Reserve, Guard miss By Will Dunham
Wed May 10, 5:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, which fell short in recruiting in fiscal 2005, met its April goal, but the Army Reserve and Army National Guard missed their targets amid persistent concern among potential recruits over the Iraq war.

The Pentagon released monthly military recruiting data on Wednesday showing that the active-duty Army achieved its 11th straight monthly goal.

But the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard, which both also missed their fiscal 2005 recruiting goals, showed fresh signs of weakness in April even as the Pentagon reduces its reliance on these soldiers in Iraq.

Seven months into fiscal 2006, the Army is slightly ahead of the number of recruits it had landed at the same time a year ago. But because of the way the Army structured its 2006 monthly goals, a big chunk of the recruiting work remains to be done in the summer months.

In a bid to make this year's goal, the Army announced a new $1,000 enlistment bonus for graduating high school seniors who get good marks on a standardized test and agree to enter boot camp by September 30, the last day of the fiscal year. It is the latest in a series of incentives intended to lure recruits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060510/..._recruiting_dc

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:14 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
^ has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i was talking about, and it would be great if you could cite what you just cut-and-pased.

anyway, i find your numbers highly dubious ... could they possibly have come from here?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060511.html

if you can't trust the White House for reliable numbers, who can you trust?




as reality (and not military propaganda) goes ...





[/q]
Here are some websites with some basic info. Its not getting much media attention because it does not fit the liberal stereotype of the current situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0510-dod01.htm


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2...13mythfact.pdf


Much of the recruiting shortages that have come up in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve are do to the fact that Active Army retention of members who normally complete the rest of the military obligation by going into the reserves, is unusually high, much higher than it normally is in peacetime. There for, the National Guard and Army Reserve which have traditionally relied on Active Army members joining the Reserves for much of their annual recruiting totals, are now having to find recruits in other places, since these Active Army members are choosing to remain on active duty.

All of the services suffer just as deep or deeper recruiting shortfalls in 1998 and 1999 during the peacetime of the Clinton administration.

Its important to note that NONE of these shortfalls either in the late 1990s or over past couple of years, have been anywhere near large enough to have any actual impact on the manning of combat units or combat support units.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:21 PM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its not getting much media attention because it does not fit the liberal stereotype of the current situation.
Maybe Fox should have paid attention to it...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:25 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Maybe Fox should have paid attention to it...
Whatever you believe politically, those are the above facts on recruiting so far this year.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:04 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Here are some websites with some basic info. Its not getting much media attention because it does not fit the liberal stereotype of the current situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0510-dod01.htm


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2...13mythfact.pdf



you really need to broaden the sources from where you get your information. one is a DOD website, the other pulls press releases from the DOD and presents them as news. there's no analysis, just a reporting on what the DOD is saying.

example:

[q]Recruiting, Retention Rates Remain High for 10th Straight Month
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

In-Depth Coverage WASHINGTON, April 10, 2006 – Recruiting and retention rates released today demonstrate that young people see military service as a viable career option and, once they join, they want to continue serving, Defense Department officials said today.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...410-afps03.htm

[/q]

bias indeed. it seems to be a fine source for collecting documents from which to glean an understanding of the situation, but to view such documents as the final say on any situation is to be little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the DOD.

and you've got to stop whining about the "liberals." it's so tired, and such a gigantic lie since most mainstream news has a clear conservative bias if anything.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:06 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Rush Limbaugh on illegal immigration: 'I can't think of any single issue, in the 18 years I have been on the air, which has Republicans more up in arms than this one'...
really?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:50 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you really need to broaden the sources from where you get your information. one is a DOD website, the other pulls press releases from the DOD and presents them as news. there's no analysis, just a reporting on what the DOD is saying.

example:

[q]Recruiting, Retention Rates Remain High for 10th Straight Month
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

In-Depth Coverage WASHINGTON, April 10, 2006 – Recruiting and retention rates released today demonstrate that young people see military service as a viable career option and, once they join, they want to continue serving, Defense Department officials said today.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...410-afps03.htm

[/q]

bias indeed. it seems to be a fine source for collecting documents from which to glean an understanding of the situation, but to view such documents as the final say on any situation is to be little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the DOD.

and you've got to stop whining about the "liberals." it's so tired, and such a gigantic lie since most mainstream news has a clear conservative bias if anything.
The numbers in your "conservative media" sources come from the Department of Defense as well.

The fact is, the numbers I posted are correct, despite the fact you suggested they were not.

Lets save the rubbish arguements about bias, lies, and sources for another thread.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:54 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The numbers in your "conservative media" sources come from the Department of Defense as well.

The fact is, the numbers I posted are correct, despite the fact you suggested they were not.

Lets save the rubbish arguements about bias, lies, and sources for another thread.


the numbers i posted had actual analysis around them by sources independent of the DOD.

i never said your numbers were incorrect. most of your numbers on a variety of topics are not incorrect. they are simply incomplete, misleading, and do a poor job conveying the reality of any particular situation.

as for "bias, lies, and sources," you're the one who whines about the "liberal" media.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com