In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Rack Ops
Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
This is in reference to the Iowa National Guard thread(s) floating over on general.
The things that need to be said can't be said on General Discussion. Too many people get their feelings hurt and debates that need to happen get squashed before they have a chance develop...because we'd rather talk about things that don't require any thought.
Few topics around here really "bother" me around here...if people think I'm worked up, I'm usually banging away on my keyboard with a smile on my face.
I'll be honest.....todays discussion of the National Guard pissed me off to no end.....as far as I'm concerned, the people who cheerleaded the whole thing should be ashamed of themselves.....no better than the * who spat on the soldiers returning from Vietnam.
The Iowa National Guard has deployed more than 13,000 soldiers since the Sept 11th attacks, out of a strength of around 9,400 men. About a 1,000 of them (presumably those at the center of the controversy) will be deployed overseas in the coming year. They are deploying to fight.....and thanks to the tin-foil hat brigade they'll be going into the fight without the proper training.
Now the plan is for the soldiers to conduct training at the platoon level at the armory.......Congratulations Iowa, it is my honest hope that your sons and daughters do not reap the fruits of your stupidity.
The things that need to be said can't be said on General Discussion. Too many people get their feelings hurt and debates that need to happen get squashed before they have a chance develop...because we'd rather talk about things that don't require any thought.
Few topics around here really "bother" me around here...if people think I'm worked up, I'm usually banging away on my keyboard with a smile on my face.
I'll be honest.....todays discussion of the National Guard pissed me off to no end.....as far as I'm concerned, the people who cheerleaded the whole thing should be ashamed of themselves.....no better than the * who spat on the soldiers returning from Vietnam.
The Iowa National Guard has deployed more than 13,000 soldiers since the Sept 11th attacks, out of a strength of around 9,400 men. About a 1,000 of them (presumably those at the center of the controversy) will be deployed overseas in the coming year. They are deploying to fight.....and thanks to the tin-foil hat brigade they'll be going into the fight without the proper training.
Now the plan is for the soldiers to conduct training at the platoon level at the armory.......Congratulations Iowa, it is my honest hope that your sons and daughters do not reap the fruits of your stupidity.
Comments
We are sending these men and women off to war. Many are effectively being drafted. It appeared that the town welcomed them and a sufficient number if individual homeowners had welcomed the training as well. It sounds like they had the choice to support their own, and they did.
I have no idea how valuable training in a small town in Iowa would be, and would think it was being offered to ensure that as many as possible of their boys came home in one piece. It was their choice and it sure as hell is not my position to doubt them.
Brad Steele
No one has made a definitive statement as to "where" they are training for.
You "presume" they are training for deployment overseas.
Others "presume" they are training to use those tactics here, in this country.
Isn't that what is at the center of this controversy?
No one REALLY knows for sure.
You "presume" they are training for deployment overseas.
Others "presume" they are training to use those tactics here, in this country.
Isn't that what is at the center of this controversy?
No one REALLY knows for sure.
I have no idea if the specific unit is being deployed overseas in the near future or not....but I do know this: The is a very good change, probably close to 100% that most of those soldiers are going to deploy overseas at some point eventually.
This training would have served them well
I do not trust the government to not use troops against us.
Any that volunteer for the military after Vietnam and dozens of other actions that have had little to do with American freedom and much to do with empire building and cash funneled into powerful mens pockets can take their chances.
They don't get American towns to practice in. No doubt there are legions of americans willing to accept such actions...I am not.
The 'training' makes zero sense to be conducted in a rural, quiet, small American town, for the reasons previously listed, period.
Unless............
If Arcadia wants to participate in order that more of their boys make it home, that is obviously their right and I cannot and will not fault them for it. If it was external pressure that caused the cancellation of the exercise, we must ask ourselves a couple of questions. Is it our right in this case to impose our view on those who apparently felt differently? I doubt that it is, but if yes, how many members of the Iowa National Guard should be sacrificed to appease our perceived affront?
This whole thing is wrong. We simply have to stop using our military in this manner.
Brad Steele
The 'training' makes zero sense to be conducted in a rural, quiet, small American town, for the reasons previously listed, period.
There have been three very vocal proponents of this training on general.....Myself, Night Stalker, and cce.
Every one of us served (or are serving) in combat arms and every one of us are veterans of the war.
We are unanimous in our opinion that this training makes sense.
The way to accomplish this is by the men and women of the Armed Forces
to JUST SAY NO...no more enlistments, when the tour ends get out.
A few weeks ago you were lecturing another member that the military would be where we would draw leadership from in the event of "trouble"
I see they've re-taken their position as nothing more than tools of the beast in your eyes [V]
Never happened.
I have ALWAYS said that to allow a military trained commander to control civilian units is sure death for that unit.
That Civilian unit CANNOT gain the level of skill and competence of those that it will be fighting.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
The 'training' makes zero sense to be conducted in a rural, quiet, small American town, for the reasons previously listed, period.
There have been three very vocal proponents of this training on general.....Myself, Night Stalker, and cce.
Every one of us served (or are serving) in combat arms and every one of us are veterans of the war.
We are unanimous in our opinion that this training makes sense.
Great, so what? My opinion is just as valid.
Once again, the points I brought up are not related to the motivation of the individual soldier, nor their acquiescence to any civil unrest/martial law "contingency".
Neither did I ever state or imply that this planned training was going to result in the Iowa ARNG actually conducting search and seizure operations 'real world' in Arcadia Iowa.
I simply questioned and focused on the government's motivation for the training, where it was being conducted and how it was planned, along with perfectly valid questions as to why it was not planned for being executed on any of a number of readily available military bases.
This issue has still not been refuted to any meaningful degree.
Nothing about a small peaceful town in Iowa, peopled by peaceful American citizens, in American style homes and setting, is required to "train-up" in a realistic manner for duty in a third-world nation and the mission there.
Do you deny that this may well be "contingency planning" for potential future operations in an actual small American town, peopled by American Citizens?
That is my point, beginning and end, always was.
The Fed is getting scared, because it is doing things and going places that it was never intended to go and the economy is teetering on the edge of collapse. They are fully aware of our armed populace and will do anything to prepare to stave off civil revolt/unrest.
Do you deny that the Fed plans and trains for such domestic contingencies and that this Iowa training may well have been related to just such a contingency, whilst using the loose cover of deployment overseas?
Great, so what? My opinion is just as valid.
Wow, all opinions are equally valid now?
For someone continuously hammers the Church of Collectivism, you sure don't hesitate to blatantly steal their ideas.....
No, lt, all opinions are not equally valid. A tree-huggers opinion on oil supplies isn't as valid as that of a geologist. My opinion on Arizona criminal law isn't as valid as yours.
Just because we have an equal right to express our opinion doesn't make ones opinion have any relevant value.
The validity of a person's opinion is directly related to their experience with the subject.
The folks speaking the loudest in support of this are people who have "been there and done that" the folks speaking loudest against it haven't.
That, in and of itself, speaks volumes.
quote:
This issue has still not been refuted to any meaningful degree.
Just because you don't believe it has, doesn't make it so.
quote:
Do you deny that this may well be "contingency planning" for potential future operations in an actual small American town, peopled by American Citizens?
No, I don't.
Just as I don't deny that the M-16s currently carried by those same soldiers may be turned against us.
They are not our enemies...and I'll continue to treat them as our friends until they prove otherwise.
Don't confuse this issue, particularly with any perceived overall lack of understanding of training, military, or civilian, on my part, nor the relevance of such 'training' as was proposed for Arcadia Iowa, for whatever mission may have been assigned to those troops.
What speaks volumes, is the attempt to simply brush aside what points have been made by me, due to your "been there, done that" status.
Got news for you Rack, I likely have far more experience in domestic search and seizure issues, in the move to "federalize" domestic policing, in the constant move to integrate operations with the military and with federal police services and I arguably have more insight on some of the previously proposed roles of ARNG troops in domestic 'law enforcement', having been directly involved in "training" and policing both in the ARNG and in civilian policing at the same time.
Again, so what? Your opinion is as valid as mine in those areas, albeit not as informed as mine may be.
That being said, you have in no way offered any meaningful refutation of my detailed premise in the other post about this subject, whether you think so or not. Your belief that you have doesn't make it so.
By the way, your "M-16" analogy holds no water in the context of the argument, at least as I am making it, unless, of course, you are equating their M-16 range time and M-16 qualifications as being part of a "contingency plan" for domestic operations and use against our citizens.
Final point. You have made the repeated inference that I am viewing these soldiers as the enemy. I though better of you than that Rack. My position has been crystal clear and that inference has not been part of it. It is unfair and merely a diversion.
Mayhap your "been there, done that" has clouded your ability to step back and assess the big picture, at least in concept.
In the final tally, if Rack and his cohorts are correct, they get to catcall,make fun of,deride, and collect beer bets till the earth goes flat from people calling out warnings.
If we are correct, he gets to look into his childrens eyes as he is dragged off to internment camps..or look into OTHER mens' childrens eyes as he takes the path of least resistance,
and drags off other men...under orders.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by lt496
The 'training' makes zero sense to be conducted in a rural, quiet, small American town, for the reasons previously listed, period.
There have been three very vocal proponents of this training on general.....Myself, Night Stalker, and cce.
Every one of us served (or are serving) in combat arms and every one of us are veterans of the war.
We are unanimous in our opinion that this training makes sense.
Great, so what? My opinion is just as valid.
Once again, the points I brought up are not related to the motivation of the individual soldier, nor their acquiescence to any civil unrest/martial law "contingency".
Neither did I ever state or imply that this planned training was going to result in the Iowa ARNG actually conducting search and seizure operations 'real world' in Arcadia Iowa.
I simply questioned and focused on the government's motivation for the training, where it was being conducted and how it was planned, along with perfectly valid questions as to why it was not planned for being executed on any of a number of readily available military bases.
This issue has still not been refuted to any meaningful degree.
Nothing about a small peaceful town in Iowa, peopled by peaceful American citizens, in American style homes and setting, is required to "train-up" in a realistic manner for duty in a third-world nation and the mission there.
Do you deny that this may well be "contingency planning" for potential future operations in an actual small American town, peopled by American Citizens?
That is my point, beginning and end, always was.
The Fed is getting scared, because it is doing things and going places that it was never intended to go and the economy is teetering on the edge of collapse. They are fully aware of our armed populace and will do anything to prepare to stave off civil revolt/unrest.
Do you deny that the Fed plans and trains for such domestic contingencies and that this Iowa training may well have been related to just such a contingency, whilst using the loose cover of deployment overseas?
This is the same point I have been arguing also,......just doesn't add up to me.
But then again my opinion has no validity either I guess.
Seems relatively simple to conceptualize the point, doesn't it Marc?
It only adds up if you ignore the issues that some of us have brought up and focus simply on the need for training for deploying troops, regardless of what that training is.
As an aside, I'd still like to see the analogy made for the training value received in roadblocks and house searches for a firearms dealer in Arcadia Iowa, population 400 something, and full of peaceful Americans, living in peaceful American style homes, on peaceful America streets........That Iowa setting made relative to some Afghan or Iraqi town, populated by a suppressed people in an occupied nation, some angry at our being there, many fearful of one side or the other, speaking a foreign language and living a foreign culture, residing in Afghan or Iraqi style homes and with Afghan or Iraqi style streets and neighborhoods.
Arcadia Iowa is surely the most "real world' location for 'realistic' training for deployment to those hostile zones. I bet no training, similar to that to be found in Arcadia Iowa, could have been set up on a military base that has similar peaceful American people, streets and residences. That type of location is surely only found in Arcadia Iowa and as such, offers the only 'realistic' training opportunity for these troops.
Right..........
NAtional Guard Units regarlarly train in there states and in surrounding states depending on the type of Unit and the resources available. For example Illionois Guard Units not only train in no less than 6 locations in Illinois , but train in Fort McCoy Wisc for there annual 2 week training. Unless they have been shipped out for war, which most have.
I am very aware of what and how ARNG Units train and where they train. I spent a goodly number of years personally participating in, planning and conducting such training.
This is in reference to the Iowa National Guard thread(s) floating over on general.
... they'll be going into the fight without the proper training.
Where exactly is NG going into a (the) fight? If it's "the fight" -- which fight are they fighting?
As an aside, I'd still like to see the analogy made for the training value received in roadblocks and house searches for a firearms dealer in Arcadia Iowa, population 400 something, and full of peaceful Americans, living in peaceful American style homes, on peaceful America streets........That Iowa setting made relative to some Afghan or Iraqi town, populated by a suppressed people in an occupied nation, some angry at our being there, many fearful of one side or the other, speaking a foreign language and living a foreign culture, residing in Afghan or Iraqi style homes and with Afghan or Iraqi style streets and neighborhoods.
Arcadia Iowa is surely the most "real world' location for 'realistic' training for deployment to those hostile zones. I bet no training, similar to that to be found in Arcadia Iowa, could have been set up on a military base that has similar peaceful American people, streets and residences. That type of location is surely only found in Arcadia Iowa and as such, offers the only 'realistic' training opportunity for these troops.
Right..........
For someone who claims to have spent as much time as you training law enforcement and military personel, you'd think a concept as basic as "you have to walk before you can run" wouldn't keep breezing over your head.
Since focusing on concepts appears fruitless, maybe being more specific will be more helpful.
First "basic" urban training must be completed......Patrolling, roadblocks, building entry, etc. The skills being taught are certainly building blocks, but are quite complex in their own right....a unit, for example, might spend several days mastering the "clearing" of structures.
Next, an intermediate stage, where most complex tasks, such as coordination with supporting troops...tanks, medivac, etc.
Finally, an advanced stage, where the concepts you've learned can then be applied to task at hand...namely urban warfare in the middle east. This is where you add things such as cultural considerations, translators.
Training space, time, and money are limited...the whole point is that Iowa's soldiers can get the necessary training IN IOWA for the 1st (and maybe part of the 2nd) stage before they move onto a dedicated facility for advanced training.
By "hitting the ground running" they'll be able to spend their precious training time on advanced concepts, rather than having to start from scratch.
Better training means more boys come back to Iowa when their hitch is up. For me, thats all I need to know.
One last point, regarding this:
quote:Originally posted by lt496
You have made the repeated inference that I am viewing these soldiers as the enemy. I though better of you than that Rack. My position has been crystal clear and that inference has not been part of it. It is unfair and merely a diversion.
It was not my intent to infer that you view our soldiers as the enemy, although it may have seemed that way since the post I made initially started as a reply to a post of yours.
Only one poster has, thus far, openly displayed contempt for our soldiers. That is not you, lt, and I'm sorry if you took those comments as if they were directed to you.
Not a claim, a fact.
Once again, you fail either to grasp the point, or are deliberately shying away from it. Either way it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things.
If you can't, or don't want to address the issues raised and get beyond the "trees" to look at the forest, fine.
A fruitless exercise and i'll waste no more time on it, with you. My point has been made in detail and your point has been made. Let those who read make judgment on the information and the concepts presented.
It is what it is....
Take care Rack.
If all modern troops are like you, I fear contempt is fitting.
Your refusal to grasp a simple concept...the military takes its orders from civilians...and your refusal to question those orders indicates that you will also follow orders when it is the 'law' to gather guns.
You refuse to grasp the concept that your leaders have misused the military over and over and over...
You have no heartburn with Iraq...once again, nothing in the Constitution authorizes you or any other troops to be there. You do not question your orders to go.
You only cry about not getting the training you need in some quiet little American town...so you can safely go do your UnConstitutional duties in some hell hole overseas.
Perhaps contemp is too soft a word....
Take care Rack.
You too, lt.
Your refusal to grasp a simple concept...the military takes its orders from civilians...and your refusal to question those orders indicates that you will also follow orders when it is the 'law' to gather guns.
If you could read, you would know that I'm not in the military anymore. I haven't been for several years.
quote:
You have no heartburn with Iraq...once again, nothing in the Constitution authorizes you or any other troops to be there. You do not question your orders to go.
If you could read, you would you know that I do have serious issues with the war in Iraq. I want the war over NOW. Hell, I don't want troops in Afghanistan anymore either.
As long as our soldiers are there, however, I insist on the highest level of training for them.
quote:
Perhaps contemp is too soft a word....
Perhaps illiterate is too soft a word.....
'Been there and done that' ? Sonny..you are speaking on the internet. You have no idea if you are speaking to a 16 year-old...or a man that counts his dead by the gross.
In the final tally, if Rack and his cohorts are correct, they get to catcall,make fun of,deride, and collect beer bets till the earth goes flat from people calling out warnings.
If we are correct, he gets to look into his childrens eyes as he is dragged off to internment camps..or look into OTHER mens' childrens eyes as he takes the path of least resistance,
and drags off other men...under orders.
And don't even think about arguing that Highbail's view of the world might not be totally correct. Because if you do, he and his little flock of yellow * will fly all around while calling you a blind traitor, coward or not a "real" man.
Did I leave anything out in regards to a description of how things are in Highbail's mind?
Far better men have "yellow *" than your yellow belly.