Troops on the border?????????

gobbler afflicted · 05-25-2006, 07:50 AM

If this has already been talked about I apologise, I have been turkey hunting.

I watched Rumsfield tell O'reilley that the troops would be on the border for logistical support, but not there in a law enforcement role. In other words we are having the guards technicans install some electronic survalience[sp?] equipment instead of having a private company do it.

So was the troops on the border nothing more than lip service to satisfy people who believed they would in fact be there in a law enforcement role?

When you hear troops on the border, the mind paints a picture of troops standing guard, not helping build fencing.

Tazman · 05-25-2006, 08:29 AM

GA my understanding is that they will not only be installing security equipment, they will be training the Border patrol in its use as well as actually monotoring it and letting the border patrol know when something is happening. They will also be providing other support to allow the Border Patrol to stay out in the field doing thier job rather then pushing papers or manning thier buildings.

Charlie P · 05-25-2006, 02:02 PM

Yup lip service.

Allegheny · 05-25-2006, 07:23 PM

I posted before on this, we don't have any equipment left in country to train or NG and reserves....it's all in Iraq. The troops will be doing a two week rotation to satisfy their training requirements....this is just a PR stunt.

BenGarrett · 05-25-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Allegheny

I posted before on this, we don't have any equipment left in country to train or NG and reserves....it's all in Iraq.

According to who?

bergall · 05-25-2006, 09:12 PM

I don't understand using NG troops as night watchmen. They should be laying mines and thinnin' the ranks with heavy machine gun crossfire. Let the buzzards have the dead, and the wounded can crawl back home and tell everyone not to come here any more. I'd vote out milquetoast liberal and centrist republicans but I sure as hell won't vote Dummo-cratic...there's reallly no choice. The libbos are ready to hand the whole country over without a fight. It's an embarrassment...

Mizzouhunter · 05-26-2006, 09:28 PM

Doesn't it seem more appropriate for the National Guard to "guard the nation" by helping secure the border? IMO guarding the border is a better role for the National Guard than serving overseas in Iraq. It boils down to whether they are stretched too thin already or not. As for the liberals/Democrats handing over the country, a lot of Country Club Republicans are equally responsible.

gobbler afflicted · 05-27-2006, 05:45 AM

I agree mizz.

James B · 05-27-2006, 05:31 PM

Every Administration that I can remember have been low life spinless worms when it comes to the illigal problem. I am sick of all of them. Who the hell are they pandering to? Yes I think the Guard should be on the border and I too think they should be shooting smuggelers and illegals. When they get this far, they know they are breaking the law. We are at war with terrorists and we don't have a clue who is streaming accross our borders. It looks like the two parties are finally working together. To bad the only thing that they can agree on is that they should give this country away. Why the H^*L should we obey the laws if the illigals get a free pass.?[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][

][

][:'(][:'(][:@]

bergall · 06-18-2006, 03:06 PM

Oh I agree they should Guard the Nation. That's NOT what they're being slated to do on our Southern border. They're gonna support the INS by filling office jobs so INS officers can go out into the field and do the same ineffective job they've been doing all along. Either we put 30,000 NG troops on the border who can lock-n-load, or hire another 30,000 INS officers to they can do the proper job. We don't need the NG working as "Girl Friday" in the office.... Jeez !