You all knew this was coming: armed troops to Central Africa

[rjmacs]

billb wrote:
It's probably terribly inconvenient, but you could resource beyond where that article conveniently leaves off:
In May 2010 President Barack Obama began a new chapter in the border mission calling once again on National guard (army and Air) troops. This time only calling those troops in the border states for the mission. As of this time, there has been no mention of what the new border mission will be called.

So, you DO have some source stating that these troops are unarmed? I like you, billb, and i find your comments generally curmudgeonly but often spot-on. But i don't see any evidence that these troops aren't armed.

[OWC Jamie]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=billb]
It's probably terribly inconvenient, but you could resource beyond where that article conveniently leaves off:
In May 2010 President Barack Obama began a new chapter in the border mission calling once again on National guard (army and Air) troops. This time only calling those troops in the border states for the mission. As of this time, there has been no mention of what the new border mission will be called.

So, you DO have some source stating that these troops are unarmed? I like you, billb, and i find your comments generally curmudgeonly but often spot-on. But i don't see any evidence that these troops aren't armed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37340747/ns/...pxknpv1n-M
Of course they down-played the unarmed just a tad. :-)

actually, you could search this forum as it was discussed at the time and the general concensus at the time was troops who were in a support role (sent in for political reasons with not much to do) in safe zones pretty much didn't need to be bristlingly armed with weapons, especially if they were doing mundane tasks like monitoring cameras, shuffling papers behind the scenes.

You don't remember the President being vehemently opposed to arming the border , then under pressure sending troops and calling them unarmed so he could do both and not appear hypocritical ?

[$tevie]

Are we playing Dueling Links? Can I play, too?

Training for the troops began last summer, and deployment began in August. Full-scale operations for the armed troops on the Arizona-Mexico border began Oct. 1, Salazar said. All the National Guard troops deployed in Arizona are volunteers from the Arizona Guard. The soldiers carry firearms and are authorized to defend themselves, if necessary, but do not make arrests. Instead, they serve as additional eyes and ears for law enforcement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011...rder_N.htm

The deployed troops are armed and trained, but their assignment is strictly hands off*. Most of their work involves sitting in small turret raised about 20 feet above a truck, watching the fields and brush along the Rio Grande River. When they spot something suspicious, they call the Border Patrol to investigate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/...re-months/


* Herein lies the confusion, I'll bet. For example, anonymous residents anticipating their arrival in May 2010 saying that they have "no guns".

[rjmacs]

billb wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37340747/ns/...pxknpv1n-M
Of course they down-played the unarmed just a tad. :-)

actually, you could search this forum as it was discussed at the time and the general concensus at the time was troops who were in a support role (sent in for political reasons with not much to do) in safe zones pretty much didn't need to be bristlingly armed with weapons, especially if they were doing mundane tasks like monitoring cameras, shuffling papers behind the scenes.

You don't remember the President being vehemently opposed to arming the border , then under pressure sending troops and calling them unarmed so he could do both and not appear hypocritical ?

Well, i didn't ever think that domestically 'deployed' soldiers would be 'bristlingly armed.' I don't personally relish the idea of 'bristlingly armed' troops of any sort on U.S. soil, off of military bases. That sounds a lot like a military state to me, and i'll pass on that. Thanks for the link. I don't do a lot of forum-searching on this side, because it makes my brain hurt to see how little the discussions here change over time. My hunch is that the president didn't really want to send troops to the border at all, but cowed to political pressure in order to give the impression that the federal government was doing something about illegal immigration. A copout, ineffective, and a waste of money and our military. (OMG did an avowed liberal just criticize the PotUS? NO WAY!)

Now, do we have evidence that troops are ever deployed to combat zones or foreign soil unarmed? Since that's really what we're talking about here, i mean. Oops, i have to edit based on $tevie's new links... I remain unconvinced that soldiers have been deployed without guns of any sort. (Which makes sense to me - i've never heard of soldiers deployed with no weapons at all - it seems contradictory in itself to me.)

Edited based on new info.

[OWC Jamie]

Oh my, let's spend days posting about all the Different Minuteman groups and which ones had guns and which ones didn't and in which states and in which month / year.

The border has been a political dog and pony show for decades.
Bush and Obama have both had "peaceful" observers there when they needed them to be seen there and strong forces when they needed them .

[$tevie]

Who posted about minutemen groups? You started this linkfest, and now you are complaining about it. Go figure.

[rjmacs]

billb wrote:
Oh my, let's spend days posting about all the Different Minuteman groups and which ones had guns and which ones didn't and in which states and in which month / year.

The border has been a political dog and pony show for decades.
Bush and Obama have both had "peaceful" observers there when they needed them to be seen there and strong forces when they needed them .

But, Minutemen groups are private, not government. I'm confused. I'm with you on the dog & pony show; increased border enforcement has not affected the number of people crossing the border. Well, it has driven the number up because interceptions have increased... And it has prevented people here illegally from returning home seasonally, as they used to, because the risk of border crossing has increased. It's basically worked directly against the stated intention. Guns and fences just don't trump economics.

Still don't know that we've ever deployed troops without arms, though. Certainly not overseas.