quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

I have to disagree with you on the cohesiveness, at least as concerns Rangers. In 18 months of training together, we will see more training and or combat than any guard unit will see in 10, 20 or even 30 years.

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

I have to disagree with you on the cohesiveness, at least as concerns Rangers. In 18 months of training together, we will see more training and or combat than any guard unit will see in 10, 20 or even 30 years.

According to your profile you served in the 1st BN 75th INF Rangers from 1994-1997 for 18 months. You missed Somalia which took place in 1993. I was wondering what combat do you claim to have been involved in during your 18 months with the Ranger Battalion that you claim. "In 18 months of training together, we will see more training and or combat than any guard unit will see in 10, 20 or even 30 years."

There are many Infantry Army National Guard units that have served 2 tours and some even 3 tours in Iraq and or Afghanistan which would be 24 to 36 months. Please tell us how during the time frame you spent 18 months in the Ranger Battalion how you spent more time in combat or even in training than these Guard units that have spent 24 months and in some cases 36 months in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You also questioned me on the Weapons thread about my "combat experience". I served in Regular Army as a Paratrooper and on a LRS Team. I am now in the Army National Guard. I served several years with the 20th Special Forces Group Alabama Army National Guard and in an Infantry National Guard unit. I have more time in combat than you have time in service. Please feel free to elaborate on your "combat" experience.

I would be willing to bet a months pay that the average supply clerk in the Army National Guard serving in a support unit has seen more combat than you have.

You talk pretty big for a peace time soldier especially on the combat effectiveness of units and my combat experience.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
I guess it comes down to this question when looking at Guard/Reserve vs Regular components: at the end of the crisis, who stays to mind the store? Do the guard and reservists remain active or do they return to the civilian community and take up their old jobs, etc.? I remember my dad telling me of the end of WWII in which the troops came home and went back to their pre-service lives, without the complaints we seem to be constantly bombarded with over compensation of hardships, etc from the folks in the 60s, 70s and even of late.

It all boils down to money. For the most part it will be left to the Active Duty folks since they are already an active duty it would cost more to activate a Guard/Reserve unit to do this mission. However I am sure they will send many Guard/Reserve units overseas for our Annual Training to fill in for the Active Duty folks. For example, The last Guard unit I was in was a Detachment of a Regular Army unit stationed in Germany and they sent us to Germany in small cells of 10 to 15 soldiers for our Annual Training all year long to work with our parent unit.

War is a harsh business. From time to time, support is needed from outside sources to shore up the mission of the forces that are already in place. Neither I, nor anyone, can deny that with any realistic support. However, when the treaty is signed, what happens then? You guys have said "that may have been true 20 years ago, but times have changed." Perhaps, but have the missions of the guard and reserves changed to the point of negating a drawdown and keeping everyone on active duty (leaving the states without their guards)? And if they have, why are there guardsmen and reserve units who have remained in an inactive status?

Take in mind that the National Guard has state side missions the Regular Army and Reserves do not have. The Guard is used in times of natural disasters and border security. We still perform these added missions even when many of our units are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think the bickering has caused everyone to lose sight of the fact that, when it gets right down to it, there is a difference between the reserves/guard and the regular components. That was why I made my earlier statements that were taken with such offense. What do you Guardsmen and Reservists do when the crisis is finished and the troops have come home? Extra duty? or Home?

We come home and return to our civilian careers which is another thing our Active Duty counterparts do not have to worry about.

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

I used the term 18 months because you used it. My experience is what you are wondering about? Math must be beyond you since 1994-1997 is 3 years last time I checked. I would have figured that you served in 20th group you would know that Rangers participate in combat operations all the time that are not Somalia or Bosnia. Perhaps the SF guard really is clueless. My area of operations was primarily central and southern America, but of course there is no combat there to be seen, especially during the height of both the war on drugs and the implementation of Nafta and Clinton's neo-liberal agenda. I too was on a LRSU team with the Rangers. I take it you have your Q6 designation as well? SO tell me why you want to call me out on my experience when I never questioned yours, just gave my opinion on cohesiveness of RA versus NG. I thought that is what P/CP is all about, but perhaps again I am wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by RavenWarrior:

quote:

Originally posted by areyouapatriot:

I used the term 18 months because you used it. My experience is what you are wondering about? Math must be beyond you since 1994-1997 is 3 years last time I checked. I would have figured that you served in 20th group you would know that Rangers participate in combat operations all the time that are not Somalia or Bosnia. Perhaps the SF guard really is clueless. My area of operations was primarily central and southern America, but of course there is no combat there to be seen, especially during the height of both the war on drugs and the implementation of Nafta and Clinton's neo-liberal agenda. I too was on a LRSU team with the Rangers. I take it you have your Q6 designation as well? SO tell me why you want to call me out on my experience when I never questioned yours, just gave my opinion on cohesiveness of RA versus NG. I thought that is what P/CP is all about, but perhaps again I am wrong.

I saw the dates and yes I can add, however I was repeating what you had stated.

Yes you did question my combat service in the Weapons area of this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
Why is anyone proud of "confirmed kills"? I have always been fascinated with that aspect of the armed forces.

I have many, many confirmed terminations. My job is as a Respiratory Therapist and my job often calls on me to "pull the plug" when a physician orders it. Doctors do not have the license to do it, they just write the order, and we do it. In my 24 years as a respiratory therapist, I have terminated too many of my patients. The tough thing is looking in their eyes as their life flickers, fades and extinguishes.

I know that sounds off subject, but I just had to comment on the above poster who said why not compare number of confirmed kills. That is not any way to be, to be proud that you have taken life that was not yours to take.

By the way, my numbers probably exceed 100. I am just not proud of that. It means I failed on some level to preserve life.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
Ok. But there are others who are proud of it. I don't know how many guys I have met who said, "yeah, I was a Navy SEAL and I gotta bunch of kills under my belt, but I don't like to talk about it." I usually reply, "then why did you bring it up?" I have given them the evil eye until they eventually knuckled under and said, "you didn't buy that BS, did you?" I usually say, "nope! a real service member can tell a poser when he sees one." But it seems to be a badge of honor. The meaning of 'Ace' as far as air combat is concerned is somewhat different. It didn't mean that the pilot was killed. In fact, many times, the American aviator would check to make sure the enemy chute opened after shooting him down, and pray for him to be safe. That is different from what goes on now. It seems we have guys that are more "bloodthirsty", or so it would seem. And most of them are not the real deal.