terpfan1980 terpfan1980

National Guard and Reserves problem reflects only on...

▼

National Guard and Reserves problem reflects only on...

... military leaders in the individual units

from JoeUser Forums

I see where some want to claim that the problems in the National Guard and Reserves -- especially reports that guard units aren't "ready" and issues similar to that -- reflects poorly on or is the fault of the Bush administration.  I'm here to call B.S. on that right here and right now.

The problems in Guard units and Reserve units that are being hyped currently reflect badly on the leaders of these individual units.  Leaders that bring part-time attitudes to positions that require attention and due diligence to make sure that the citizen soldiers that make up these units are ready when called upon.

There are far too many people in Guard and Reserve units that are quick to take Uncle Sam's money for civilian training, and for 1 weekend a month and a few weeks out of the year.  They send members of their units off to learn at places with trumped up names like "The Army War College" or to training sessions and seminars that have important sounding names and slick brochures and agendas but which do almost nothing to keep soldiers ready to serve if the need arises.

Having been in the military in the past, specifically in the reserves, in having relatives that are still serving in the National Guard, I know from which I write.  While there are some that are ready, and which maintain that readiness through their own effort, they are exception more so than the rule.  The further removed the members of the Guard and Reserves get from basic training and skill training, the more their skills weaken.  Partly from apathy, partly from a lack of enough time and equipment to use for training on their designated tasks.

Again though the problem isn't so much a lack of money or attention from civilian leadership or leadership from the White House.  The U.S. budget is loaded with money for the National Guard and the Reserves.  Perhaps not as much as some in the leadership roles would like, but certainly with enough to waste on a lot of unnecessary toys and equipment to dress up the offices of the local commandant of the Guard unit.  Enough to put in fancy conferencing equipment that never gets used.  Enough for a lot of other wasted items.

Blaming Bush for these problems is as ignorant as a host of other "blame Bush" items that the left has tried to put forth in the past.  As always, as worthless as a $3 bill.

politics
14,857 views 39 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dan Greene

Ok, I was curious.  It is your summation of the events.  Not a bad one.  Thanks for the explanation.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
He LIES about the direction of the debt and LIES about the amount of the debt. How the President can get away with saying the debt in 2006 was $248 Billion and the Treasury reported that the debt was in fact $ 574 Billion is unbelievable.


“Once again....read the rebuttals to your nonsense. You might learn something.”

The rebuttals do not change the fact that Bush said one thing and the Treasury Reports say another. Bush Lied pure and simple!
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The rebuttals do not change the fact that Bush said one thing and the Treasury Reports say another. Bush Lied pure and simple!


We, on the otherhand...believe that YOU LIE, PURE AND SIMPLE!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most Democrats believed the lies Bush and Cheney told. They were scared to death by spector of nuclear attack by Saddam who Bush and Cheney knew did not have nuclear weapons in 2003. It was not the Intelligence that was wrong it was that Bush and Cheney ignored the intelligence that said Saddam had no nuclear capability!


LOL.

Not one person was "scared to death" of Saddam and his WMD's.  Democrats thought Saddam was a threat before and after Bush was elected.  There were no intentional lies.  The biased media, you, or the democrats have never proven one!





Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

You are not calling me a liar but the Treasury of the U.S.

IslandDog

Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam has no nuclear weapons they LIED when they warned of Mushroom Clouds if he was not removed from power. Bush did not listed to those with far more experience when they told him the likely outcome of our invading Iraq. Guess what they were correct and Bush was WRONG!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam has no nuclear weapons they LIED when they warned of Mushroom Clouds if he was not removed from power. Bush did not listed to those with far more experience when they told him the likely outcome of our invading Iraq. Guess what they were correct and Bush was WRONG!


LOL.

We have already shown the mushroom cloud quote was barely used, and how you took most of it out of context.  Try again.


Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

You are not calling me a liar but the Treasury of the U.S.


No, I'm calling YOU a liar in the "way" you pick and choose your info and then when you present it.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just wanted to add something more hopefully I can dodge the crossfire in here. But I believe there was a GAO Government accounting office, report not too long ago that said that the rate of spending in the last few years is unsustainable.

George W Bush and the Republican congress is responsible for that and nobody else.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

I copied the data directly from the Treasury site. I did not pick and choose. I posted the list of data that the Treasury posted. YOU ARE FULL OF BS!

IslandDog

Now the claim is that the threat of nuclear attack by Bush and Cheney was as you put it was, “BARELY USED” Another BS artist! Using that one time when you knew it was NOT true is a LIE! Ignoring the fact that Saddam had no military capability and saying he was a danger was a LIE!
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Greene

You are correct. The Comptroller General was on 60 minutes last night saying the same things I have been saying about the way we are running the fiscal affairs of this country. He said that we are mortgaging our children's future which is morally wrong. He also said if we do not deal with the debt, when the Medicare and Social Security funding becomes a problem as the Boomers retire (79 Million over a 20 year period) our country will go BANKRUPT! That is strong talk from the man that heads the GAO!!!!!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well it's nothing new to hear somebody bitching about "mortgaging our children future" paying for this or paying for that. But Brad is right when he says if the government would just stop increasing spending or slow that increase income would exceed expenses.

I really don't see how we are wisely spending the money either. I mean the failed war in Iraq, according to the GAO there is something like $10 billion that has just fallen between the seat cushions in Iraq, and I know in the age of trillion dollar GDP's that's not really all that major, but we are talking billions of dollars that if accounted for, could have been spend on other things. How many billions of dollars would it cost to put an extra cop on duty in every city? How many billions of dollars to rebuild some homes in storm destroyed areas of the south from Katrina?

I'm not saying lets all jump on the socialist bandwagon buying people more stuff and sticking the bill with taxpayers, but lets sure as hell as keep track of the money we do pay in and spend on stuff, account of those who do spend and raise taxes to pay for losing money is ridiculous. This entire war in Iraq is going to cost half a trillion dollars and what did that get us? Lots of dead Iraqis and Americans, and the assuredness that Saddam Hussein wasn't going to be able to build WMD ever again. I'm not sure if that value both in money or in lives really is/was worth it.

Trying to predict economic values beyond 10 years, inside of 10% is inaccurate anyway. Thats always been the situation with the social security issue, and that issue is no longer an economic one but a political one, dredged every time there is an election to move the senior vote to the polls.

Another thing on the national debt. Part of the bill for the national debt is interest, and this remains about 10-15% of the total expenses of that debt. Of course it would be great to have less debt, but we would also have serious opportunity costs in having to make that sacrifice. Those would include cuts to lots of different programs that make up big chunks of the spending. Or ending the pork barrel spending, when pigs fly right?

Managing that debt at a level of between 10-15% allows the nation to carry a manageable debt, and limit spending, while also providing for programs deemed necessary for the well being of a nation.

Though Brad would like to see lots of these socialist programs eliminated if not all, and economically this would be great benefit to the economy, it would cause many other problems both foreseen and unforeseen. It is precisely why we don't have a purely capitalistic system, because having a dash of scoop of socialist value in the economy reduces the risks to society's most impoverished as well as reduces the severity of the boom and bust cycle of more pure capitalistic systems.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terpfan1980, many thanks for writing this article. I am a parent of an 18 year old who is considering signing himself into the National Guard. We've already had a couple meetings with the local recruiter, who seems to be a very pleasant and knowledgable person. Quite honestly, I am still quite unsettled on this topic. I want to advise for the best and am wondering what you, Hadeon, ParaTed2k and Dan Greene would tell a parent like me about the National Guard and whether or not it's a good thing to consider----given the times, the political climate, etc.?

Thanks.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

lulapilgrim wrote:

Terpfan1980, many thanks for writing this article. I am a parent of an 18 year old who is considering signing himself into the National Guard. We've already had a couple meetings with the local recruiter, who seems to be a very pleasant and knowledgable person. Quite honestly, I am still quite unsettled on this topic. I want to advise for the best and am wondering what you, Hadeon, ParaTed2k and Dan Greene would tell a parent like me about the National Guard and whether or not it's a good thing to consider----given the times, the political climate, etc.?

If you don't mind, I'll answer that in a new article shortly.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
My opinion shouldn't count for much, I've never been in the guard or regular army. The recruiter will go over the rewards as well as the commitments with your son. The guard is an excellent place to get an education if you have trouble affording one but with the perpetual state of major combat/occupation operations in Iraq the very real reality is he could/would have to face the reality of a deployment to foreign soil.

He should make his own decisions though. If he is old enough and you trust him enough to make those decisions, if he trusts himself. There is danger and risk in any choice made in life, and joining a military opens up the possibility of many potential dangers in a hostile deployment.

For the state of the national guard/active duty military, things are hard but not desperate, the military is overburdened but expanding recruiting.

You write...

"Quite honestly, I am still quite unsettled on this topic."

Have you discussed your concerns with your son, and with the recruiter how do they react? Do they take your concerns to heart? How would u feel if your son was in danger? How would u feel if you prevented him from making a choice he really wants to pursue?

All I would advise is that you take the time, to debate, to question, to confer, to communicate, and support whatever decision he chooses because the decision is really his at his age. The responsibility lies with him also.