You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

I think that is fair enough. I believe I posted something about NG not being full time soldiers, but that is just the Ranger in me. Rangers feel that way about everyone that isn't Special Ops. I think this war has forever changed the way many of us see NG.

I agree and I think that new questions need to be asked and new answers to old questions, as well. THAT is my point. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you, sir.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
I agree and I think that new questions need to be asked and new answers to old questions, as well. THAT is my point. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you, sir.

Don't call me sir, I work for a living... and your welcome

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

I have looked at it from your side, the problem is that some of cannot be seen from your side. Have you tried to look at it from ours?

Yes I thought as you did when I was AD but whenI went into the RF I realized I had been wrong.

Most RF Soldiers I know would take being called a non professional weekend warrior as an insult. You say you do not think is is an insult. Having never been in the RF how would you know? I understand where you are coming from because I have been AD.

I am sure that Archie Bunker never thought colored was an insult, and might point out that NAACP has colored in its name. I am not comparing the type of prejudice that most AD have towards RF to racism, I was only using this as an example to make a point.

I do understand that the vitrol you felt may have closed you from being able to evaluate what is being said with an open mind.

As to your question that these Soldiers who wrote the article

quote:

When evaluating the veracity or accuracy of the claims made by these folks, the question needs to be asked: who is making these observations with regard to the troops and their lack of enthusiasm for their deployment? In other words, are they "professionals" or are they the "weekend warriors"?

and then you further explaination basicly said that AD would not do something like this and would just take the deployment as a change of scenery, while for RF it would be very traumatic to be taken from their comfort, fine dining and routine and do not accept deployment or the needs of the mission as easily is very insulting to someone who has trained and sacrificed to be preapared for such a deployment.

You have had several who have stated that they accepted deployment just as easily as AD.

I do understand part of what you feel based on some the RF soldiers you dealt with in '91. It does not surprise me that you could hear "I didn't sign up for this" back then. The point I have been trying to say is that that mentality died out over 15 years ago.

At that time there had not been a major mobilization in 30 years and had not been a significant amount of RF soldiers sent into a combat zone for 40 years. It would not surprise me that some expected that they would never be mobilized.

The "peace dividend" drawdown set us closer to the military that our forefathers invisioned, which was no large standing military. This would require the Citizen/Soldier to play a much larger part during conflict.

This happened in "91 and it woke a lot of people up. No longer was there a thought that they would not be called up. Those who would not be willing to deploy got out. Those who stayed continued, as they had before, to keep themselves ready to deploy, that is our purpose.

In 2001 most of us knew we would be called up. It was not a case of if but when. The unit I was in was put on alert on Sept 15 and it was expected that we would hit ground in Ft Lewis on Oct 15. The mission changed and we did not stand up at that time, but we were ready and willing.

The RF you are trying to decribe does not exist anymore and has not for a long while. To say that we are still like those who did not sign up to deploy is inaccurate and yes, insulting. It may not be insulting from an AD point of view, but to an RF point of view(the target of your critique) it is.

As for Vitrol, welcome to Point/Counter Point. It is often refered to as punch/counter punch. If you do not want the vitrol, you are in the wrong place

Ok its official I have found something denser than lead. You suffer from being stuck in the transmit mode, get help and learn how to switch over to the receive mode. Don’t have the time or patience to show you the path. Enjoy being right while you can.

Thank you for the answer and the thought that went into it. It is nice to hear that you understand where I am coming from. Yes, I agree that the culture has changed. The problem is that many who responded to my question failed to read my posts that said that I had only been in the regular component.

I was not being insulting, I used statements to which I have been accustomed. But I was viewed as insulting. To quote you, welcome to P/CP. I understand that P/CP is a forum where people can easily get spun up. That is the purpose for the forum. But name calling is not cool. Yes, I called you some names. For that, I apologize.

I have been trying to see your point of view, that is why I posted my comment. But with nothing on which to base that view, I could not. Getting POed at me is okay. However, it was not until the last few posts that my question was partially answered with some degree of insight.

I have read that there is a higher incidence in reservists and guardsmen who complain about the deployments than those from the regular components. It is understandable. I just wanted to see if the status of the troops could be considered a factor with the attitude of the troops.

Nobody wants to stay there, but are the regulars more comfortable with the situation than the reservists and guardsmen and is that justification for the unprofessionalism of the individuals who wrote the article.

My answer to the latter is that there is NO justification for either reservists or regulars to make statements that bring discredit on the services. Perhaps all personnel should go through SERE training, not just aviators, aircrew, SPECOPS or Intel types. Maybe then they would have a greater appreciation for their position. I don't know is SERE is available to reservists and guardsmen, but it could sure give a good indoc as to what to expect. That is what my opinion is.

Say, guy, participation in any of these groups is completely voluntary. If ya don't like what ya see, feel free to find one more to your liking.

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Ok its official I have found something denser than lead. You suffer from being stuck in the transmit mode, get help and learn how to switch over to the receive mode. Don’t have the time or patience to show you the path. Enjoy being right while you can.

ahh this is nothing. I once went about 10 pages with Eravet on the subject of the First Amendment and Religious freedom. Now that one was fun; all I could picture was an old man banging away at his keyboard with the veins in his forehead popping out.

He could just not stay away from any thread that involved evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Ok its official I have found something denser than lead. You suffer from being stuck in the transmit mode, get help and learn how to switch over to the receive mode. Don’t have the time or patience to show you the path. Enjoy being right while you can.

ahh this is nothing. I once went about 10 pages with Eravet on the subject of the First Amendment and Religious freedom. Now that one was fun; all I could picture was an old man banging away at his keyboard with the veins in his forehead popping out.

He could just not stay away from any thread that involved evolution.

Yeah, I saw one guy made one post that took up the whole page because of the C & P. Another guy kept trying to get the others to lay off the cut and paste. That was pretty funny.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Ok its official I have found something denser than lead. You suffer from being stuck in the transmit mode, get help and learn how to switch over to the receive mode. Don’t have the time or patience to show you the path. Enjoy being right while you can.

ahh this is nothing. I once went about 10 pages with Eravet on the subject of the First Amendment and Religious freedom. Now that one was fun; all I could picture was an old man banging away at his keyboard with the veins in his forehead popping out.

He could just not stay away from any thread that involved evolution.

Yeah, I saw one guy made one post that took up the whole page because of the C & P. Another guy kept trying to get the others to lay off the cut and paste. That was pretty funny.

Nyuk! Nyuk!

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Ok its official I have found something denser than lead. You suffer from being stuck in the transmit mode, get help and learn how to switch over to the receive mode. Don’t have the time or patience to show you the path. Enjoy being right while you can.

ahh this is nothing. I once went about 10 pages with Eravet on the subject of the First Amendment and Religious freedom. Now that one was fun; all I could picture was an old man banging away at his keyboard with the veins in his forehead popping out.

He could just not stay away from any thread that involved evolution.

They are kind of funny, They get stuck in Transmit and they dont listen! to busy pontificating! I have been doing this for just shy of 30 years. 13 of thos years on AD working with NG/AR. I have found problem children in all services and they are usually the ones that complain the most.

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

I think that is fair enough. I believe I posted something about NG not being full time soldiers, but that is just the Ranger in me. Rangers feel that way about everyone that isn't Special Ops. I think this war has forever changed the way many of us see NG.

I served for several years with the 20th Special Forces Group Alabama Army National Guard and is a Special Operations unit. There are 2 Special Forces Groups in the Guard, the 19th SFG and the 20th SFG.

I served in Desert Storm and thats when the view of the Guard and Reserves started to change. Now with Iraq and Afghanistan it has changed even more. Many Guard units have deployed twice now and when back home the Guard still has the additional mission of Border Security and Disaster Recovery. Two years ago I deployed for hurricane Bruce and hurricane Katrina. For hurricane Katrina I got a call at work at 11:30am and told to be at the Armory no later than 4:30 that afternoon and told don't know how long you will be gone or where you will end up.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
Thank you for the answer and the thought that went into it. It is nice to hear that you understand where I am coming from. Yes, I agree that the culture has changed. The problem is that many who responded to my question failed to read my posts that said that I had only been in the regular component. I do not think anyone failed to read that, in fact it was pointed out to you several times that you had only been AD and were questioned on how you could really know about RF

I was not being insulting, I used statements to which I have been accustomed. But I was viewed as insulting. You may not have intended to be insulting, but when it was pointed out that what you were saying was insulting and denigrated the servise of RF servicemembers, you continued using the same words and statements putting down RF service. You then attempted to justify it, say that it was not insulting, and say everybody does it, with examples To quote you, welcome to P/CP. I understand that P/CP is a forum where people can easily get spun up. That is the purpose for the forum. But name calling is not cool. Yes, I called you some names. For that, I apologize. Names I do not worry about but denigrating someones service is generally not accepted here.

I have been trying to see your point of view, that is why I posted my comment. But with nothing on which to base that view, I could not. Good to see you now accept the observation that you did not know what you were talking about Getting POed at me is okay. However, it was not until the last few posts that my question was partially answered with some degree of insight. You original question was if the Soldiers who wrote the article were AD or RF. That question was answered fully a few pages ago. The soldiers were AD in the 82d Abn.

I have read that there is a higher incidence in reservists and guardsmen who complain about the deployments than those from the regular components. It is understandable. I just wanted to see if the status of the troops could be considered a factor with the attitude of the troops.

Nobody wants to stay there, I stongly beleived in the mission. If I did not have 3 small children I would have extended for another tour over there, I did not think it would be fair to my children. Several from my unit did extend but are the regulars more comfortable with the situation than the reservists and guardsmen and is that justification for the unprofessionalism of the individuals who wrote the article. well seeing as how the soldiers were AD, it would show that the AD is not more comfortable with the situation.

My answer to the latter is that there is NO justification for either reservists or regulars to make statements that bring discredit on the services. I agree with you 100% Perhaps all personnel should go through SERE training, not just aviators, aircrew, SPECOPS or Intel types. Maybe then they would have a greater appreciation for their position. I don't know is SERE is available to reservists and guardsmen, but it could sure give a good indoc as to what to expect. That is what my opinion is.

I think, my friend, that you know a lot about attitudes in the RF, but you do not understand sociological applications. My question was never really "were they RF or Regulars", but do their status as RF or Regulars affect their attitudes. My contention is it does. You are exhibiting the same "prejudice" and closed-mindedness of which accusations were based early on. The fact that you "do not know what you are talking about" with regard to others not seeming to understand (refusing, as is apparently your view, to see) that there are diffences in the two. That your concession is provisional and guarded is evidence of that. A truly open mind is willing to concede without reservation that other points of view exist and understand that those differing opinions are based on some experience, whether it is by virtue of exposure or word of mouth. These days, the media plays that up to the hilt.

In many cases, and it is wrong to assume otherwise, regulars do not follow up their active duty enlisted period with reserve time. Conversely, Officers in the Armed Forces are initially commissioned to the RF and must request formally to augment the active duty numbers. The Academies do not necessarily have that provision, they are presumed to be regulars upon graduation, except for a few who have stipulations to the contrary. That is because they are commissioned with an OBLISERV, just as those who enlist are.

You confuse the terms Regular and AD. Regulars are ALL AD, but not all AD are Regulars. That is where the distinction comes in and should not be viewed lightly. There is a difference between Regulars and the RF. That is where you miss the point. Just because one is on AD does not presume that he or she is a Regular.

The point is that until my release from AD in 1997, Reservists still carried a pink ID card. Even those who were sent to Kuwait. I know many from that era. One was one of my best friends and we played cards routinely. He was also a Game Warden with the Department of the Interior. So we knew all the fishing holes. I had been told he was killed in the ME. But he was not listed as AD, but USNR. And I worked with many TAR members.

The point is that it isn't that AD are more comfortable, but that regulars are. When I deployed in Earnest Will - which was my last deployment and under hotile fire - yes I was homesick, but I was ok with it because I was doing my duty. I might add that my son was 4 at the time, but we all understood that families make sacrifices, so dereliction of duty was never an option with me. He is not in the Regular Navy and is a 5.0 Sailor. So it was never a question of who was AD and who is not.

I would ask you this, are there members of the RF who are not on AD? Again, as I said, there are NO Regulars who are not AD. Therein lies the problem - communication. When I say Regulars I am referring to 100% deployable AD. But reservists are classified as the Ready Reserve or the Standby Reserve. And under the Ready Reserve there is the IRR and the Select... Well, you get the picture. Among Regulars there is only one classification - Regulars. Are you starting to see where there is a reason for the "misstatement"? I only know about the classifications because I read what the Federal Statute says about it recently. And that is as of 2 January 2006.

So I believe it to have been grossly unfair to judge a person whose only exposure to the reserves is as I said before. I never looked into it because it was not my business. It was your business, though.

How about saying something like this:

"Hey, dude, the Reserves and National Guard are not like they used to be. We are well integrated into the overall force than we were when you were in. We are more like regulars than before. We are now more regular members than before."

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

I think that is fair enough. I believe I posted something about NG not being full time soldiers, but that is just the Ranger in me. Rangers feel that way about everyone that isn't Special Ops. I think this war has forever changed the way many of us see NG.

I served for several years with the 20th Special Forces Group Alabama Army National Guard and is a Special Operations unit. There are 2 Special Forces Groups in the Guard, the 19th SFG and the 20th SFG.

I served in Desert Storm and thats when the view of the Guard and Reserves started to change. Now with Iraq and Afghanistan it has changed even more. Many Guard units have deployed twice now and when back home the Guard still has the additional mission of Border Security and Disaster Recovery. Two years ago I deployed for hurricane Bruce and hurricane Katrina. For hurricane Katrina I got a call at work at 11:30am and told to be at the Armory no later than 4:30 that afternoon and told don't know how long you will be gone or where you will end up.

I can't speak for the 20th, but I did serve with the 19th after getting out of active duty. In comparison to Ranger battalion, that SF national guard group was a joke. Hardly a real soldier among them. The worst squad in 1st bat would outperform their allstars. That was a while ago though so things could be different.

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin93:
Tucker Carlson says soldiers shouldn't write sentences like "a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force... I'm uncomfortable with it... weighing in on a political question like this squanders the awesome moral authority these guys have."

Carlson says, "to tell the American public that this is what the majority of Iraqis believe is a stretch for anybody."

Everything I've read says that the huge majority of Iraqis aren't grateful to us and think we're occupiers. 90% of the Sunnis and 62% of the Shiites approve and welcome attacks on us.

Go away, Tucker. Nobody cares.

Tucker said that no way Bill O says MSNBC supports defeat and terrorism against America. I guess Bill O is wrong as usual. Oh and yes he did say it I watched the show. I guess MSNBC has Right Wingers that support Bush.

The Loyal Bushie Right Wing Nuts are always saying listening to the Troops that have been there and now they don’t want to listen to them because they are not on board with the Loyal Bushie Right Wing Nut Agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by speters53:

quote:

Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin93:
Ground truth. Thanks for posting it.

As General Petraeus has said -- there's no military solution to Iraq. Nobody in Iraq really is on our side and the Iraqis aren't grateful to us for anything we're doing for them.[/i]

I didn't know General Petraeus had a crystal ball. No one knows the solution or how this thing is going to play out. That being the case, I'd rather go down with guns blazing Than mount up cowboy??? You wouldn't want to be considered a CHICKENhawk would ya??? than to get shot in the back Than stop running away and sign the paper. You graduated from the military academay in 98??? yet you still are considering joining???

Maybe he has asthma, bad knees, or a bad back from playing high school football like these pro-war loyal bushie chicken hawks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inspkrGVbw

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
You have all been insisting that I see things from your point of view. Why don't you try to see things from mine to understand why I said it? Even the original responder who "called me on it" said that he felt that way when he was in the regular Army then changed after he became a reservist. I was never a reservist. So my way of thinking stayed constant. So don't condemn me for my question when you don't understand where I am coming from. The cut and paste was not started by me. So cry about it to those who started it. Besides it doesn't do much for your message when it is accompanied by a "cut and paste".

I think that is fair enough. I believe I posted something about NG not being full time soldiers, but that is just the Ranger in me. Rangers feel that way about everyone that isn't Special Ops. I think this war has forever changed the way many of us see NG.

I served for several years with the 20th Special Forces Group Alabama Army National Guard and is a Special Operations unit. There are 2 Special Forces Groups in the Guard, the 19th SFG and the 20th SFG.

I served in Desert Storm and thats when the view of the Guard and Reserves started to change. Now with Iraq and Afghanistan it has changed even more. Many Guard units have deployed twice now and when back home the Guard still has the additional mission of Border Security and Disaster Recovery. Two years ago I deployed for hurricane Bruce and hurricane Katrina. For hurricane Katrina I got a call at work at 11:30am and told to be at the Armory no later than 4:30 that afternoon and told don't know how long you will be gone or where you will end up.

I can't speak for the 20th, but I did serve with the 19th after getting out of active duty. In comparison to Ranger battalion, that SF national guard group was a joke. Hardly a real soldier among them. The worst squad in 1st bat would outperform their allstars. That was a while ago though so things could be different.

As I cant speak for for the Ranger Battalion or the 19th SFG. I was a Paratrooper in Alaska and on a LARS Team (still called LRRP Team back then) for the 5th ID when I was on active duty. I found the 20th SFG to be a pretty good unit. Sure we had some shi+ birds but over all it was a great unit.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
How about saying something like this:

"Hey, dude, the Reserves and National Guard are not like they used to be. We are well integrated into the overall force than we were when you were in. We are more like regulars than before. We are now more regular members than before."

Not the case at all. The Guard has not changed, its the attitude of the active forces that has changed. They have come to realize we can perform our mission as well if not better than they can and they cant go to war without us.

Compairing the Army National Guard to the Regular Army you will find that soldiers in the Guard on average are older, better educated, and more mature than their Regular Army counterparts. We also bring with us a host of backgrounds and skills from our civilian jobs that they don't have. For example the Infantry Guard unit I deployed with had soldiers who were welders, carpenters, mechanics, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, EMT's, police officers, an Environmentalist (Me), a Mayor of a small town, a High School football coach, a Fire Chief and several firemen. Many of our Soldiers have college degrees and some with advanced degrees. These soldiers deployed as an Infantry unit but brought with them skills you will not find in a Regular Army Infantry unit.

I understand the Guard has not changed. And I understand the makeup of the Guard. I also understand from reading the Federal Statutes in Title 10 of the United States Code that the Reserves have really not changed, per se. What I was suggesting was that instead of crying out that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I was a fool was no way to get me to see any point beyond that of a hostile person. It is much better to make a person's point by making a statement like the one above, adjusting it to mean whatever was really meant.

The legal orgainzations of the NG and the RF have not changed. Only the policies in which they are used. But that wasn't even the point. At the time I posted my first post on here it was merely an inquiry as to the attitudes of the troops "over there" that is all. If the attitudes have changed then I think that that change in attitude has to count for something.

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
How about saying something like this:

"Hey, dude, the Reserves and National Guard are not like they used to be. We are well integrated into the overall force than we were when you were in. We are more like regulars than before. We are now more regular members than before."

Not the case at all. The Guard has not changed, its the attitude of the active forces that has changed. They have come to realize we can perform our mission as well if not better than they can and they cant go to war without us.

Compairing the Army National Guard to the Regular Army you will find that soldiers in the Guard on average are older, better educated, and more mature than their Regular Army counterparts. We also bring with us a host of backgrounds and skills from our civilian jobs that they don't have. For example the Infantry Guard unit I deployed with had soldiers who were welders, carpenters, mechanics, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, EMT's, police officers, an Environmentalist (Me), a Mayor of a small town, a High School football coach, a Fire Chief and several firemen. Many of our Soldiers have college degrees and some with advanced degrees. These soldiers deployed as an Infantry unit but brought with them skills you will not find in a Regular Army Infantry unit.

There are definitely pros and cons to both. I agree that the NG folks are going to be older, possibly more mature, and most likely better educated. I would also say that regular army is going to be better trained and a more cohesive unit, at least prior to activation, since they are training everyday and not once a month. They are most likely going to be in better shape as a whole. Yes there are some folks not active that are in great shape, I still manage to stay in shape, although not quite in the 5 miles in 25 minute 19 year old shape, but good none-the-less. I think that the guardsmen might be lacking in discipline in comparison, but that isn't entirely a bad thing. A lot can be said for thinking for ones self that is usually detered by most line units.

Guard units I would argue have better cohesiveness. The hometown guard unit is normally made up of people who live and work around each other far longer than RA units. Many grew up together and went to school together. I have seen NG units where the 1SG had been in that unit his entire career. Many serve in units that their father and even grandfather served in in many cases father and son serve in the same unit at the same time as well as brothers serving together. These soldiers have a pride in their unit not seen in the active forces outside of Special Operations Units. Their unit also represents their state and hometown.

As far as discipline goes I will give that one to you. Guardsmen being older and better educated on average are more likely to question an order if its a questionable order and less likely to blindly follow any order given. Part of this is due to our being older and better educated than our active duty counterpart. People who are older and better educated are going to be less likely to follow any order blindly that younger and less educated soldiers would. Being older, more mature and better educated we are less likely to need the close supervision soldiers in the RA need. We are less likely to tolerate the Micky Mouse games they like to play in the RA as well.

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:
There are definitely pros and cons to both. I agree that the NG folks are going to be older, possibly more mature, and most likely better educated. I would also say that regular army is going to be better trained and a more cohesive unit, at least prior to activation, since they are training everyday and not once a month. They are most likely going to be in better shape as a whole. Yes there are some folks not active that are in great shape, I still manage to stay in shape, although not quite in the 5 miles in 25 minute 19 year old shape, but good none-the-less. I think that the guardsmen might be lacking in discipline in comparison, but that isn't entirely a bad thing. A lot can be said for thinking for ones self that is usually detered by most line units.

I would disagree with part of that. I think people who train together for 10 or more years are more cohesive than people who have trained together for 18 months.

I do agree with the physical part. Although the RF must meet the same APFT standards, I have seen more who are only passing, not excelling, than I saw in AD.

Unfortunately, Congress and the President did not give the option of not following the orders given by those in superior positions. Therein lies the rub. The regulars do not have that option. All personnel, whether NG or reserists swore an oath to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of teh officers appointed over me". There is no ambiguity. There is no wiggle room. Questioning the orders is not an option. This is Federal law, found in Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 502 and is enforcible under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial. That is where a lot of regulars may have a problem with the NG and RF.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
Unfortunately, Congress and the President did not give the option of not following the orders given by those in superior positions. Therein lies the rub. The regulars do not have that option. All personnel, whether NG or reserists swore an oath to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of teh officers appointed over me". There is no ambiguity. There is no wiggle room. Questioning the orders is not an option. This is Federal law, found in Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 502 and is enforcible under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial. That is where a lot of regulars may have a problem with the NG and RF.

quote:

are more likely to question an order if its a questionable order

a questionable order; and yes they have every right and a duty to question such an order

"Take no prisoners!" "Excuse me Sir, you do mean let them go right?" rather then "Yes Sir"

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:
Compairing the Army National Guard to the Regular Army you will find that soldiers in the Guard on average are older, better educated, and more mature than their Regular Army counterparts. We also bring with us a host of backgrounds and skills from our civilian jobs that they don't have. For example the Infantry Guard unit I deployed with had soldiers who were welders, carpenters, mechanics, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, EMT's, police officers, an Environmentalist (Me), a Mayor of a small town, a High School football coach, a Fire Chief and several firemen. Many of our Soldiers have college degrees and some with advanced degrees. These soldiers deployed as an Infantry unit but brought with them skills you will not find in a Regular Army Infantry unit.

I have to correct you on a few of these issues. In the regular Navy, our ratings (what you call MOS) run the gamut and include all of the skills you mentioned (of course not the Mayor or environmentalist). But as far as welders, we have the Hull Techs, carpenters, HE operators and truck drivers are Seabees, EMTs are Hospital Corpsmen, and every Sailor is a firefighter. These are the basic skills on which we build further specialties. And most of us go further and gain our college degrees. I think that to say that we can't go to war without the Guard is not accurate, since Desert Shield/Desert Storm were done without the Guard. The mission has expanded, though and the Guard has its place, just as the RF does.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:
Compairing the Army National Guard to the Regular Army you will find that soldiers in the Guard on average are older, better educated, and more mature than their Regular Army counterparts. We also bring with us a host of backgrounds and skills from our civilian jobs that they don't have. For example the Infantry Guard unit I deployed with had soldiers who were welders, carpenters, mechanics, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, EMT's, police officers, an Environmentalist (Me), a Mayor of a small town, a High School football coach, a Fire Chief and several firemen. Many of our Soldiers have college degrees and some with advanced degrees. These soldiers deployed as an Infantry unit but brought with them skills you will not find in a Regular Army Infantry unit.

I have to correct you on a few of these issues. In the regular Navy, our ratings (what you call MOS) run the gamut and include all of the skills you mentioned (of course not the Mayor or environmentalist). But as far as welders, we have the Hull Techs, carpenters, HE operators and truck drivers are Seabees, EMTs are Hospital Corpsmen, and every Sailor is a firefighter. These are the basic skills on which we build further specialties. And most of us go further and gain our college degrees. I think that to say that we can't go to war without the Guard is not accurate, since Desert Shield/Desert Storm were done without the Guard. The mission has expanded, though and the Guard has its place, just as the RF does.

So does the Army, however I was talking about comparing a Regular Army Infantry Unit to an Army National Guard Infantry Unit. I thought it would be the only fair thing to do was to compare units made up of the same MOS, rank structure and numbers of soldiers. I should have been more clear on this point but since I had been talking about Infantry units I figured you would have seen this. Normally there are no welders, carpenters, ect in an Infantry line Company.