Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gay State Conservative

All other facts aside, it was my opinion then and now that the Guardsmen were poorly trained and led. Riots had been going on for the previous few years and from what I saw there was a command failure.


46 posted on 05/03/2010 7:00:04 PM PDT by Little Bill (Carol Che-Porter is a MOONBAT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Little Bill
All other facts aside, it was my opinion then and now that the Guardsmen were poorly trained and led.

That's certainly possible.Even if some (or even many) of the Guardsmen had real experience in,say,Vietnam I would think that that wouldn't qualify them to handle a riot.My feeling is that handling riots requires a very special kind of training and back then the National Guard was known pretty much to be a joke.

57 posted on 05/03/2010 7:09:00 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Little Bill
All other facts aside, it was my opinion then and now that the Guardsmen were poorly trained and led. Riots had been going on for the previous few years and from what I saw there was a command failure.

I agree. Many of my friends served in the National Guard during the 1960's. Their attitude was they were there to disobey and screw-up. It was a different National Guard than today's.

I served my time as active duty. We trained on riot control. We drilled using various formations with fixed bayonets. We were taught there were seven levels of escalation which would warrant increasing the use of force. The seventh level was to shoot live rounds. We were under the impression that such an order was very unlikely.

I'm convinced if active duty soldiers were deployed at Kent, the shootings would not have happened.

82 posted on 05/03/2010 7:25:28 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Little Bill

horsefeathers,, they wanted a violent revolution where only THEY got to be violent. The snots were asking for it, begging for it, for years.

A LOT of violence and bombings happened on their side first. I think it’s funny how AMAZED they were when the other side fought back.


90 posted on 05/03/2010 7:29:18 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Little Bill

“Riots had been going on for the previous few years and from what I saw there was a command failure.”

_________________________________________________________

My DH, just back from Nam was flown to DC during those riots in the circle but they weren’t allowed to have ammo.


97 posted on 05/03/2010 7:37:56 PM PDT by JouleZ (You are the company you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Little Bill
Riots had been going on for the previous few years and from what I saw there was a command failure.

Agreed. The retribution against the rioters should have been decisively more heavy handed and should have occurred days/years earlier. We were loosing our nerve due to the fact that they were "our children."

198 posted on 05/09/2010 8:20:36 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson