Posted on 04/19/2014 1:33:21 PM PDT by lbryce
As if the Obama administration's purchase of more than 2 billion rounds of ammunition, and nearly 3,000 urban tanks, along with their unprecedented (and highly illegal) domestic spying program was not enough to convince you that the federal government is about to suspend the Constitution once and for all, the man who once vowed to run "the most transparent administration in history" has just rather inexplicably, ordered the U.S. Army to seize every Apache attack helicopter currently in use by the National Guard.
In all, the Defense Department will confiscate 192 Apaches from National Guard units around the country and give them to the active duty Army.
In exchange for the heavily armed and highly maneuverable choppers, Guard units will receive 111 UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters from the Army, Defense One reports.
Last week, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the measure will save taxpayers $12 billion, over the next three years.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
in light of the raid that was done on the Bundy ranch, this can't be good.
There was a thread last week on FR with pics of tanks going to towns...
You might be referring to this thread from earlier?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3125066/posts
Bull, you kept it up for hours and used it on the other thread you linked to, that is different from a simple mistaken in a single post, you were describing another vehicle to mislead people.
Sure I have made a mistake on terminology, but once it was pointed out, I didn't keep using it, especially one so dramatically wrong.
You did, I pointed out your mistake long ago, back in post 32, and then at least another person joined in trying to get you fixed, but you wouldn't drop the "tank" angle.
Freepers have spent countless posts on trying to stop this use of "tank" in all the conspiracy threads, from this kind of thread to the FLDS, Mormon threads, it is annoying and dishonest, and misleads people, and changes the entire story, and for you to then say that you were in the military, yet insisting on doing it, well...
There are no pictures of tanks at that thread only armored cars and vehicles.
Post 74 on THIS thread, is a picture of a tank.
Thanks for the help as there have been articles and threads showing the armored vehicles, and some online articles mistakenly calling them tanks, it’s easy to say the wrong thing if it sticks in your mind.
Those pics are ‘armored vehicles’, but when tired... our minds sometime think one thing and type something else.
It’s just been an ongoing accusation from Ansel12 every time he/she reads my posts...I shouldn’t respond anymore. I allowed someone to push my buttons, but I should have checked more carefully before answering, my fault.
Even hours and many posts later you kept insisting on calling them tanks, in post 65 you still deliberately called them tanks, and in post 80 you admitted that you “know” what tanks look like “”I know what a tank looks like...I have two honorable discharges”” so your trying to blame me, is just more dishonesty.
BTTT!
Doesn’t it make you wonder what purpose could that serve in your small town?
Government is just protecting us, of course. The Bundy Ranch could invade us!
Yeah right.
Yes they do. That's a fact...not conjecture.
And yes...there are airborne units in the Guard...the 19th and 20th Special Forces Group. There are also SOWT airborne uints across various states. And YES...they do the same job for less cost.
And don't erect a straw man by saying they couldn't replace the 82nd within days or a years notice. That's a false premise. If the structure was set up so that the 82nd HAD NGB assets...they would do that job for less.
It's the same as saying "I'd like to the see the guard get a nuke submarine on patrol in a year" when they don't have them to begin with. IF you created that structure...it wouldn't be a problem. You can't compare a crate of apples to an empty crate.
Ask those on active duty. The guard isn't the guard you think of in 1975. It's different now....and suffice it to say...the active duty (especially the air force and army) would have been up the creek since the 90's if it wasn't for the guard...and quite simply...you get more bang for the buck. That's not opinion...that Pentagon admission.
I was in a Special Operations, Guard unit, I know about them and the 19th, and the resurrected 143rd, and the 151st in Vietnam etc, far better than most, tiny units of almost all prior service and super motivated individuals do a LOT of private training to maintain their status, some of their members will fly in from states across the country to be in the highly coveted slots.
The 82nd has, or has had NG uits assigned to it, such as the Texas 36th NG before it first switched to a Ranger LRRP unit in the 1980s.
The Guard can’t maintain an active level in many areas, such as maintaining an 82nd Airborne division.
Most of us would not want to run the 82nd on a two day a month training basis with two weeks in the summer to really bring the entire Division totally up to snuff.
The 21st century American war machine cannot be entirely run on two days a month part timers who want to serve as back up and as a reserve man power pool, not as constantly deployed active duty.
What do you think the NG would look like a couple of decades after closing down the active military, what do you think our foreign policy decisions would come to look like if every large military operation required removing huge swaths of civilian workers and management from the economy and towns and states?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
