US Domestic Military Deployments.

Christ people- THE UNIT IS NOT DEPLOYED.

They're at home in Stewart, with their families. It's WHERE THEY LIVE. They're simply being pre-designated to deal with anything that arises. Usually, yes, the National Guard takes care of it, but now the National Guard deploys as a regular army unit, almost, so regular army units must in turn be prepared to do the National Guard's job.

It's not that hard- it's simply people that don't understand military procedure that can't wrap their minds around this. There is no deployment- they're at home. That's where units go when they're not in theater, you know.

reply to post by SuperViking


And do they usually,while at home,patrol the streets,do the job of police officers etc?

Because a domestic army is allowed to do just that.24/7.

But they're NOT patrolling the streets or doing any of that. They're doing the same thing all units do when in garrison, they've just been pre-designated to be the responding unit if and when something happens. And every year for years on end now, something happens.

reply to post by SuperViking


You're right they're not....but they can and they will.
Thats one of their jobs.

Originally posted by OldMedic
Once again, based upon a dubious source (at best), another idiot tells lies and tries to panic the gullible.

The U.S. Military is NOT deploying all over the USA. They do have bases/posts, which have existed for many years, scattered around the US. Those are their permanent places, not anything designed for civilian control. Places like the Norfolk Naval Station, Fort Benning, Georgia, etc.

There is no way that the military could be deployed as these fools insist will happen. It is unconstitutional for this to happen.

Oh that's right, according to these ignorant ones, the Constitution means nothing.

You that believe this bunk just go to show that P.T. Barnum was 100% correct.

Hello disinfo agent. YOU KNOW the topic and news media are discussing DEPLOYMENT FOR CIVIL UNREST and nobody ever argued the fact that the military have bases to go home to at the end of the night. the fact is THE REASON FOR THEIR DEPLOYMENT, YOU ARE an example of the type of person whom everybody hates. god ur annoying i have seen your replies in all topics pertaining to this issue and you offer the same useless peice of information which has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING! good day

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by SuperViking

 

You're right they're not....but they can and they will.
Thats one of their jobs.

And they always "could", so what's the difference now? A unit was pre-designated? It's a reuglar army unit instead of a National Guard unit (because the NG is covering down on the RA mission so the RA must cover down on the RG as well)?

So what exactly is the point?

reply to post by jakyll


Greetings jakyll.....The majority of americans have no idea why the civil war broke out....For one the civil war was not fought over slavery....The issue of slavery was one of the many excuses the union manufactured to justify the brutality....The truth be told ...The War of Northern Agression was fought over states rights,specifically session from the Union or commonly known today as the federal government...

reply to post by SuperViking


You should start your own thread about how this never happened.

It would be interesting to see how you came to that conclusion; you could post links and give us your reasons for why you think that the deployment never occurred.

It would be your very own thread and would get you point across more effectively than doing what you have been.

It could be titled:

"No Brigade Was Deployed within the US on Oct. 1st, 2008 - IT Never Happened"

And then you could thorough flush out for us how you came to this most interesting conclusion. I'd contribute for sure.

*It must be a drain constantly monitoring all of the threads about the subject and constantly replying to the posts differing from your viewpoint.

theodorej

The majority of americans have no idea why the civil war broke out....For one the civil war was not fought over slavery....The issue of slavery was one of the many excuses the union manufactured to justify the brutality....The truth be told ...The War of Northern Agression was fought over states rights,specifically session from the Union or commonly known today as the federal government...

Hi.
Yeah,its amazing how many people don't know their own history,and i don't just mean Americans.War is never about just one thing,but you could argue that in this case the state of slavery was the straw that broke the camels back.





SuperViking

So what exactly is the point?

Let me try and make it even simpler for you.
The armies first job is to fight the foreign enemy and,in cases of extreme emergency,to help out domestically.
Now,you have army units whose first job is to help out domestically,to patrol the streets even when there is no emergency.

This is new.This is different.This is not the same as it has always been.

Normally National Guard units are activated for domestic emergencies, disasters, civil unrest and the like.

There are a lot of National Guard units currently in Iraq.

So Regular Army units rotated to the states from Iraq are being used like National Guard units would be used.

It is nothing to get alarmed about the Army is your friend.
The Army is on your side.
The Army is here to protect you just like the National Guard would be doing in years past.
The Army is here for civil disturbances, disasters, emergencies and the like.
So chill out.
The Regular Army and National Guard are one and the same interchangable functionaries.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

reply to post by fmcanarney

It is nothing to get alarmed about the Army is your friend.

Its not the army thats the problem,its those who are in control of them that have people worrying.And with good reason.

If that was so, why have seperate names?

The National Guard ànd the Army, as opposed to just 'The Army' ?

The fact there are National Guards serving on the frontline is in direct violation of what they are conceived for.
The simple fact there is a combat unit working Guard duty and Guard units in the line of fire goes a long way to blur the lines.

Maybe this is the idea.. to get rid of the National Guard, after all, them boyz in the White House and the Pentagon must be desperate to get more cannon fodder to the front, and when the majority signs up for the Guards..

And when an emergency does occur, would you rather be 'helped' by a company of ordinary kids who happen to wear a uniform (weekend-warriors, I heard them called) , or a gung-ho unit that sees enemys behind every tree ?

Being on the front lines does funny things to one's psyche.. remember that when you see 'help' arrive, and whatever you do, don't even appear to make a threatening move, or you might get a sample of that battle-stress in the form of some big holes in your body..

Peace

Here is a somewhat related thread that just popped up.

Troops in DC?

Check it out.

reply to post by Phatcat


At the onset of WWII it was the National Guard that was activated to fill the ranks of Regular Army. The National Guard won WWII for USA> The Guard is to reduce a "standing army" while still having combat trained men who are already finished with boot camp and advanced individual training, so they can be inducted very quickly.
The Guard NCO has just as much training to kill as the average NCO.
Lots of men retire from Regular Army and join the Guard and vice versa. The two are just different versions of a citizen soldier.
The Guard reduces the cost to taxpayers, like insurance, decent wages, food, medical. The Guard men must get their own health insurance, feed themselves and family from their civilian job.
If the Guard Unit is in Iraq then logic would be that a Regular Army unit replace it while standing down, or rotated out of Iraq to the states.

reply to post by Maxmars


Great link thanks for adding it.

One line replies suck

fmcanarney, you're making too much sense and using too many facts for this topic. Stop it.