Metal Sludge Gossip Board

PHOENIX (AP) -- The Obama administration plans to announce Tuesday that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, an Arizona congresswoman said.

Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords also said in a statement released Tuesday that President Barack Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.

Part of Giffords' district borders Mexico.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman said the governor hadn't been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. The troops wouldn't perform significant law enforcement duties.

That program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and prevent Mexico's drug violence from spilling over into the United States.

Why must we be bordered with such a shithole country?

And no I'm not talking about Canada.

Two things that strike me about this:

-I think I read somewhere else that these troops are only "advisers" and not allowed to carry loaded weapons or engage anyone...deployed for observation and training.

-That Rep. Giffords is taking the credit for this when Gov. Brewer put in a request for the same thing three days prior. Either Giffords is trying to put a feather in her cap or the administration is giving a big fuck you to Brewer.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:Two things that strike me about this:

-I think I read somewhere else that these troops are only "advisers" and not allowed to carry loaded weapons or engage anyone...deployed for observation and training.

-That Rep. Giffords is taking the credit for this when Gov. Brewer put in a request for the same thing three days prior. Either Giffords is trying to put a feather in her cap or the administration is giving a big fuck you to Brewer.

So in other words, Obama will continue to fail at doing one of his most important jobs, which is protecting our borders. You can bet that if Obummer had any reason to believe that all the Mexicans he continues to allow to pour over the border into the US would end up voting Republican, he'd have that shit locked down tomorrow.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:Two things that strike me about this:

-I think I read somewhere else that these troops are only "advisers" and not allowed to carry loaded weapons or engage anyone...deployed for observation and training.

-That Rep. Giffords is taking the credit for this when Gov. Brewer put in a request for the same thing three days prior. Either Giffords is trying to put a feather in her cap or the administration is giving a big fuck you to Brewer.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman said the governor hadn't been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.

I think the administration sent the gov a message.

It was funny - we were watching Fox news at lunch and Megyn Kelly was almost hysterical about how the President had a meeting with Congressional republicans about illegal immigrants and the border and HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH THEM TO DO ANYTHING! OMG! And then a few hours later, this. Which of course republicans will dismiss as a token effort.

Which it may indeed be, but it sure isn't nothing.

yeah Tin, but why send them in with no ability to do anything but stand there in their BDUs, a nice target to any messican with a rifle and a grudge?

I'm from the mindset (being a military brat) that if you are sending troops somewhere, you unhook the leash. I'm not saying that they should be doing covert ops across the border, but fuck at least give them the chance to be proactive about some of the stuff they are bound to encounter.

Our rules of engagement were bullshit in Iraq, it is a travesty to have to use them protecting our own borders.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:yeah Tin, but why send them in with no ability to do anything but stand there in their BDUs, a nice target to any messican with a rifle and a grudge?

I'm from the mindset (being a military brat) that if you are sending troops somewhere, you unhook the leash. I'm not saying that they should be doing covert ops across the border, but fuck at least give them the chance to be proactive about some of the stuff they are bound to encounter.

Our rules of engagement were bullshit in Iraq, it is a travesty to have to use them protecting our own borders.

When they start shooting drug toting hoppers, they'll be persecuted like they were under Stepin Fetchit.

Besides, what better way to for Obama and Emmanuel to start to implement their "civilian defense force" than to have have civil unrest, threatening to expand from teetering into full blown civil war.

Snubbing Arlington certainly will anger a few folks.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:yeah Tin, but why send them in with no ability to do anything but stand there in their BDUs, a nice target to any messican with a rifle and a grudge?

I'm from the mindset (being a military brat) that if you are sending troops somewhere, you unhook the leash. I'm not saying that they should be doing covert ops across the border, but fuck at least give them the chance to be proactive about some of the stuff they are bound to encounter.

Our rules of engagement were bullshit in Iraq, it is a travesty to have to use them protecting our own borders.

Agreed. This is a symbolic gesture at best which will, in the end, appease nobody. As for the ROE...well, they're there whether you agree with them or not - I don't agree with them in all cases - in order to have what you want we'd almost have to declare war on illegal immigrants in order to justify it. Just food for thought.

thejuggernaut wrote:

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:yeah Tin, but why send them in with no ability to do anything but stand there in their BDUs, a nice target to any messican with a rifle and a grudge?

I'm from the mindset (being a military brat) that if you are sending troops somewhere, you unhook the leash. I'm not saying that they should be doing covert ops across the border, but fuck at least give them the chance to be proactive about some of the stuff they are bound to encounter.

Our rules of engagement were bullshit in Iraq, it is a travesty to have to use them protecting our own borders.

When they start shooting drug toting hoppers, they'll be persecuted like they were under Stepin Fetchit.

Besides, what better way to for Obama and Emmanuel to start to implement their "civilian defense force" than to have have civil unrest, threatening to expand from teetering into full blown civil war.

Snubbing Arlington certainly will anger a few folks.

Wow, you stopped just short of a Godwin.

tin00can wrote:

thejuggernaut wrote:

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:yeah Tin, but why send them in with no ability to do anything but stand there in their BDUs, a nice target to any messican with a rifle and a grudge?

I'm from the mindset (being a military brat) that if you are sending troops somewhere, you unhook the leash. I'm not saying that they should be doing covert ops across the border, but fuck at least give them the chance to be proactive about some of the stuff they are bound to encounter.

Our rules of engagement were bullshit in Iraq, it is a travesty to have to use them protecting our own borders.

When they start shooting drug toting hoppers, they'll be persecuted like they were under Stepin Fetchit.

Besides, what better way to for Obama and Emmanuel to start to implement their "civilian defense force" than to have have civil unrest, threatening to expand from teetering into full blown civil war.

Snubbing Arlington certainly will anger a few folks.

Wow, you stopped just short of a Godwin.

There's nothing approaching Godwin about.

It's not me who spoke of a civilian national defense force. Obama did, and Emmanuel spoke of mandatory military service.

True, but you added the civil war bit.

You'd think that people who love the military would be thrilled about the compulsory military service, but I'm sure that the the hypocrisy of somebody who didn't serve in the military advocating mandatory military service, will be pointed out.

tin00can wrote:True, but you added the civil war bit.

You'd think that people who love the military would be thrilled about the compulsory military service, but I'm sure that the the hypocrisy of somebody who didn't serve in the military advocating mandatory military service, will be pointed out.

The only reason I mentioned it is because he appears to be as divisive as Curious George, possibly even a bit more.

He also seems to harbor some contempt toward the military.

Given his and Emmanuel's statements, on top of his actions concerning the military, it's not Godwinish to mention the two tidbits together.

As a former military person myself, I am pro military but extremely opposed to mandatory service.

Unlike a lot of pro-military folks, I have absolutely no qualms with the Vietnam "draft dodgers" and do not begrudge anyone who did whatever they could to avoid having to go fight that pointless war. In fact, some of my best friends are children of draft dodgers.

Now, if all hell breaks loose and the world takes up arms, then people should at least receive basic training in preparation for a worst case scenario.

I'm curious to know why you think Obama has contempt toward the military. I don't think you're going by a knee-jerk reaction that democrats hate the military, and I'd like to know why you get that feeling.

So weird...."troops" and I immediately think "Posse Comitatus"! Then I see it's the National Guard. Not standard military, though that line sure has been blurred in the past few decades so I can see the misunderstanding.

tin00can wrote:I'm curious to know why you think Obama has contempt toward the military. I don't think you're going by a knee-jerk reaction that democrats hate the military, and I'd like to know why you get that feeling.

The civilian national defense force comment.

Extended service.

Corpse-men.

Napolitano placing an emphasis on returning vets.

ROE.

Then there's his delivery when speaking of the military.

He's essentially W all over again with his contempt for the military. Contempt and lack of respect are almost identical, so it could be lack of respect.

vlad wrote:So weird...."troops" and I immediately think "Posse Comitatus"! Then I see it's the National Guard. Not standard military, though that line sure has been blurred in the past few decades so I can see the misunderstanding.

But, they're there to enforce federal law, not state laws, so Posse Comitatus doesn't apply.

VinnieKulick wrote:

vlad wrote:So weird...."troops" and I immediately think "Posse Comitatus"! Then I see it's the National Guard. Not standard military, though that line sure has been blurred in the past few decades so I can see the misunderstanding.

But, they're there to enforce federal law, not state laws, so Posse Comitatus doesn't apply.

That's true. My point was when I saw "troops" I thought of the military proper (no offense meant at all to NG soldiers) and not the NG. It was just the use of the term "troops" that caught my eye, though as I have said, especially with Iraq and Afghanistan, the line has been blurred hugely.

vlad wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote:

vlad wrote:So weird...."troops" and I immediately think "Posse Comitatus"! Then I see it's the National Guard. Not standard military, though that line sure has been blurred in the past few decades so I can see the misunderstanding.

But, they're there to enforce federal law, not state laws, so Posse Comitatus doesn't apply.

That's true. My point was when I saw "troops" I thought of the military proper (no offense meant at all to NG soldiers) and not the NG. It was just the use of the term "troops" that caught my eye, though as I have said, especially with Iraq and Afghanistan, the line has been blurred hugely.

But reservists and National Guard HAVE been active fulltime military for nearly a decade now. Most of our reserves ARE activated already which is a dangerous thing. We don't HAVE many reserves anymore, and in that context some kind of mandatory, or at least highly incentivized, military recruitment needs to be implemented.

More people might also volunteer if the ROE weren't bullshit and the missions they are often sent on didn't hobble their ability to perform the missions and even protect themselves. Military forces and police forces are different things.

vlad wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote:

vlad wrote:So weird...."troops" and I immediately think "Posse Comitatus"! Then I see it's the National Guard. Not standard military, though that line sure has been blurred in the past few decades so I can see the misunderstanding.

But, they're there to enforce federal law, not state laws, so Posse Comitatus doesn't apply.

That's true. My point was when I saw "troops" I thought of the military proper (no offense meant at all to NG soldiers) and not the NG. It was just the use of the term "troops" that caught my eye, though as I have said, especially with Iraq and Afghanistan, the line has been blurred hugely.

Actually, they're not sent there to perform any enforcement duties. They are providing support to the Border Patrol so more agents will be freed up to interdict illegal immigrants.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... co-border/

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said he's heard that "the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs.""They aren't boots on the ground at the border," he said, adding that "they were not intended to be deployed to the border.""Rather they'll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training," he said. "Now that's all fine...but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen."

lerxstcat wrote:
But reservists and National Guard HAVE been active fulltime military for nearly a decade now. Most of our reserves ARE activated already which is a dangerous thing. We don't HAVE many reserves anymore, and in that context some kind of mandatory, or at least highly incentivized, military recruitment needs to be implemented.

More people might also volunteer if the ROE weren't bullshit and the missions they are often sent on didn't hobble their ability to perform the missions and even protect themselves. Military forces and police forces are different things.

Do you really think there are a bunch of people wanting to sign up for the military, but are holding back because of the ROE?

tin00can wrote:

lerxstcat wrote:
But reservists and National Guard HAVE been active fulltime military for nearly a decade now. Most of our reserves ARE activated already which is a dangerous thing. We don't HAVE many reserves anymore, and in that context some kind of mandatory, or at least highly incentivized, military recruitment needs to be implemented.

More people might also volunteer if the ROE weren't bullshit and the missions they are often sent on didn't hobble their ability to perform the missions and even protect themselves. Military forces and police forces are different things.

Do you really think there are a bunch of people wanting to sign up for the military, but are holding back because of the ROE?

The guys in theater don't know wtf the ROE are half the time, how would some pimply faced teen who just finished a rousing session of Call of Duty and has a case of the Gung Ho's?

tin00can wrote:

lerxstcat wrote:
But reservists and National Guard HAVE been active fulltime military for nearly a decade now. Most of our reserves ARE activated already which is a dangerous thing. We don't HAVE many reserves anymore, and in that context some kind of mandatory, or at least highly incentivized, military recruitment needs to be implemented.

More people might also volunteer if the ROE weren't bullshit and the missions they are often sent on didn't hobble their ability to perform the missions and even protect themselves. Military forces and police forces are different things.

Do you really think there are a bunch of people wanting to sign up for the military, but are holding back because of the ROE?

I didn't say a bunch, but perhaps more than currently, yes. That''s why I also said some kind of mandatory service might have to be instituted, if we don't want to keep calling up most or all of our reserves for current needs. And it's not entirely the ROE of engagement alone, but I do think that it's a disincentive to realize that you will be sent into situations where you are doing police work, not military objectives, in countries where you don't speak the language, and you are not even necessarily allowed to defend yourself automatically if fired upon.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has read stories of troops under fire having to call in to their command center and explain the situation to their commanding officer before being allowed to return fire. That seems an unfair position to put anyone in, and I can see people across the land reading accounts like that and saying "Fuck that!".

tin00can wrote:

lerxstcat wrote:
But reservists and National Guard HAVE been active fulltime military for nearly a decade now. Most of our reserves ARE activated already which is a dangerous thing. We don't HAVE many reserves anymore, and in that context some kind of mandatory, or at least highly incentivized, military recruitment needs to be implemented.

More people might also volunteer if the ROE weren't bullshit and the missions they are often sent on didn't hobble their ability to perform the missions and even protect themselves. Military forces and police forces are different things.

Do you really think there are a bunch of people wanting to sign up for the military, but are holding back because of the ROE?

A bunch of average joes, probably not the ROE directly. I am sure there are a bunch of military children looking elsewhere because their relatives told them about how it used to be, and they see what's going on now and say fuck it.

And, I am sure there a bunch of average joes who've seen the way the military's been persecuted with monkey boy and Bam sitting by doing nothing and view it as "you want to train me to fight but if I do my job too well you're going to lock me away ? You send people to fight for you but you won't help them when they are unfairly targeted by (redundancy warning) media and political scum ? Fuck that, I can make better money teaching idiots how to log into their PPPOE innnernets"

It started with Vietnam, and the way Vietnam vets, who were FORCED to join, were treated by the media and moreso by the anti war lunatics.

Thrash Gordon wrote:Lerx, here's the thing. Our military is the best in the world because it's all voluntary. The kids know what they signed up for, and why they're there. You start piping in kids that neither want to be there, nor do they give a fuck, and you have major league trouble.

Mandatory service sounds good on paper, but in practice sucks like a Thai whore. You wanna share your foxhole with some puke that doesn't give a shit about you, didn't give a shit during his training cycle, and has no love of country? I know I don't.

WWII was fought with draftees, Thrash. You realize that, right?

My point is that we already know from Katrina that when we have a natural disaster here at home now, we don't have enough National Guard at home to deal with the situation promptly, because they're all off overseas. We don't have a home guard right now, which is the purpose of the "National Guard".

What do we do about that?

WW2 was FAR from being fought by an entirely drafted military. Most people signed up before they were drafted.

VinnieKulick wrote:WW2 was FAR from being fought by an entirely drafted military. Most people signed up before they were drafted.

I didn't say it was, did I? However, 200,000 per MONTH were drafted from 1940 to 1947, Vinnie. I'm sure everybody who is asked says they volunteered, and I'm sure there were lots of volunteers, but 7-8 million men were drafted into that war.

To write them all off as "pukes" because they didn't volunteer does them a disservice, IMO.

And consider that's the last large-scale war we can truly say we won, fought with a largely concript military, this gives the lie to the idea that conscripts don't always fight well.

Thrash Gordon wrote:That was a different time and a different generation Lerx. I'm not saying there aren't good kids out there, I'm not. But kids today are soft in general. Back then, kids were told they were to be seen, not heard. Since the 70's, kids have been told they have rights, Mommy can't smack their ass for being bad, etc. With Ipods, the internet, game consoles, they have instant gratification. Take all that away and stick them in a war they possibly don't believe in, and you have trouble. Not in all cases, but in many.

You're right, it'd be a lot harder making soldiers out of them, and not all would make it. But though they might be soft, they also are makable into soldiers.

I knew a few people when I was a kid, and others I've met in later life that I didn't grow up with, who joined the service basically as an alternative to going to jail, when they were in their late teens. And I'm not going to say they didn't come out scarred, either. But in most cases they did their 4-8 year stints and were reasonably effective soldiers or Marines, enough so to be honorably discharged at least. We're not talking about elites, we're talking hick kids who'd become petty thieves and drugheads. The military turned them around.

And I know that even our generation is not as soft as today's kids, but I also think it may become a necessity for us withing the next 10-20 years, and not an abstract subject for debate as it seems today. Neither China nor Russia are going away, and Iran, Pakistan and India are all growing.

Somewhere on this globe, shit's gonna happen and we are SUDDENLY gonna need WAY more troops than we have. Better to have something in place before then than have to scramble, IMO.

Rome tried buying off the barbarians rather than fighting, and it didn't work for them. It won't work for us, either. Unless we annex Mexico and make them our army or something like that, as the Romans hired the Goths as mercenaries. Of course we know how that turned out, too.