Terminalcoffee discussion

41 views
Rants / Debates (Serious) > When should the national guard be used/not used? (delete)

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments Some state politicians in Illinois are calling for the National Guard to come to Chicago and help against crime:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

I've also heard the national guard mentioned in the immigration debate.

What do you think? Political move? When should the national guard be used or not used?


message 2: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17373 comments Mod
I don't really get the National Guard. It seems they work harder, at shittier jobs, for less pay than the army. Why? What is their origin, their purpose originally intended for?


message 3: by Anthony (new)

Anthony Buckley (anthonydbuckley) | 145 comments It's awful when murder gets to the point you have to bring in the soldiers.
There used to be small towns and villages here where the soldiers, armed to the teeth, crept around the streets in pairs, one walking forwards, the other backwards, just in case somebody took a pot shot at them. It isn't nice. Better avoided, I would think.


message 4: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i have some friends in the national guard who are not full time guardsmen but work other jobs and go like once a month on a weekend and two weeks a year in the summer to train. the ones i know are NOT qualified to help against crime. good guys, just under-trained. they seem to work out greatly in natural disasters or times of civic need but in a situation that could involve force i don't think this is your solution


message 5: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments Those are good questions, Sally. I don't know, either. Is the National Guard "military"? I'm honestly not sure.


message 6: by [deleted user] (new)

The National Guard is to be deployed in the event of a national emergency or catastrophe. While I heartily empathize with Chicagoland lawmakers who feel crime is spiraling out of control, that's a local jurisdiction matter, and not something we should be calling the National Guard out to. The State of Illinois should be pooling resources together to combat the high incidents of crime - especially ones with such high profiles like the ones we've seen recently - but since the state is pretty much bankrupt, we may be seeing an escalation of crime, unfortunately.


message 7: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24778 comments Mod
This actually makes zero sense because the violent crime rate has been dropping in Illinois since 2001. It reached a high in the early to mid 1990s.

In Chicago we have a big gang violence problem. (Yet even with all the gang killings, the overall murder rate has dropped over the last decade.) We need to figure out how to deal with gangs and their violence. I don't see how the National Guard would know anything about that.


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

I remember watching the National Guard roll down Michigan Avenue on the way down to 12th Street during the 1967 riots. That was some scary shit.

I think it's safe to say they were needed then, but to fight crime in Chicago? Hmmmm...


message 9: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments The National Guard should be used for national matters within our own borders: disaster relief, defense, and policing.

When things start to get out of control, like riots and whatnot, the Guard should be called in. I'm not sure about fighting crime though. But I guess that begs the question about what the breaking point is. Do you really want to wait until there is an angry mob in the street? If crime is such a concern in Chi Town, I'm sure sending out some guards in full combat ready gear to roam the streets would scare the crap out of miscreants and wannabe gangsters though.


message 10: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Over the past 8 years or so, the Guard has taken on full military deployment in Iraq and Afganistan -- mostly in non-combat support roles. The casualty rate of State Guardsmen has been unprecedented in our history. They have taken their trucks and gear over there and have come back without it, leaving Guard units undersupplied back home. They're not just for disaster relief anymore, thanks to the Rumsfeld and Cheney gang of corporate marauders.


message 11: by Arminius (new)

Arminius I am a very proud member of the National Guard. All that was said is true except that our mission has almost entirely became participation in the current wars. All I can say is that they have been keeping me very busy.


message 12: by Phoenix (new)

Phoenix (phoenixapb) | 1619 comments Thank you for your service Arminius!


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

What is the National Guard? Is it like our Army Reserves? i.e. people who are in the army as reserves who have full time jobs but do the training and can be called up if additional numbers are necessary? I initially interpreted National Guard as the equivalent of our Federal Police. What their function is I am not 100% clear other than I think they have jurisdiction across Australia unlike the State Police.


message 14: by [deleted user] (new)

So is it a permanent Guard or a reserve Guard? Are they more like army or more like police?


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

Oh, they will be handy then when the south want to secede.


message 16: by Arminius (new)

Arminius BunWat is correct. The National Guard is under the state's governor. We are not police but have been used to help police and used in state emergencies. However we can, and are often, activated by the President and become part of the the regular army for specific periods.

Also thank you, Alecia.


back to top