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.....

[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!