NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently the pentagon decided to change the rules for the national guard so that there is no limit to the ammount of active-duty deployment they can be sent on.

"Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq-Military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

My condolences to anyone who was caught in the "One weekend a month / 2 weeks a year" bait-and-switch.

My condolences to anyone who was caught in the "One weekend a month / 2 weeks a year" bait-and-switch.

That's rather insulting, to suggest that I joined because I wanted to "play soldier" every now and then.

That's rather insulting, to suggest that I joined because I wanted to "play soldier" every now and then.

Then you didnt get caught in the "one weekend a month two weeks a year bait and switch," did you?

Then you didnt get caught in the "one weekend a month two weeks a year bait and switch," did you?

Do you honestly believe that the people who join the National Guard do so under the pretense, especially with the current war and the fact that a large portion of our deployed troops are Guard or Reserves, that they're simply in for nothing other than drill periods and should never expect to be deployed?

Who are you to offer your "condolences"? Were you ever in the military?

Do you honestly believe that the people who join the National Guard do so under the pretense, especially with the current war and the fact that a large portion of our deployed troops are Guard or Reserves, that they're simply in for nothing other than drill periods and should never expect to be deployed?



If you want to be deployed long-term, why not join the army?

?

You won't convince me, and I dont care to hear you bitch, that people dont join the NG with the expectation of a more limited role in foreign combat and a greater role in things like disaster relief, guarding the nation, &c.

If you want to be deployed long-term, why not join the army?

?

You won't convince me, and I dont care to hear you bitch, that people dont join the NG with the expectation of a more limited role in foreign combat and a greater role in things like disaster relief, guarding the nation, &c.

Because they also have a family to support, businesses to run, etc.

War is a younger man's profession. Always has been and it always will be.

Most NG signed up for the college money. They never wanted to go anywhere and were content showing up. That has changed.

In their defense, there are some HARDCORE National guard units. Not quite Marine, but close :p

I apologize to anyone who wasn't already screwed over by President Bush. It's official. Everyone in America except those in the top .05% has been screwed over.

If you want to be deployed long-term, why not join the army?

?

You won't convince me, and I dont care to hear you bitch, that people dont join the NG with the expectation of a more limited role in foreign combat and a greater role in things like disaster relief, guarding the nation, &c.

I really don't care to hear you bitch about something that doesn't affect you, since you seemed to ignore my question of if you had ever been in the military.

I thought it was odd that you would make the effort to start a thread with such a condescending post, suggesting that recruits were "caught" under the guise that their duty only consisted of drilling periods throughout the year.

Of course the National Guard is also deployed to disaster areas around the country when they are needed. But, who exactly are we guarding the nation against? The threat of invasion from Canada?

And of course, no one wants to be deployed overseas for an extended period of time, but if they are ordered to, they will do it. That is their duty.

I really don't care to hear you bitch about something that doesn't affect you, since you seemed to ignore my question of if you had ever been in the military.
How the hell is his military service relevant? Also, I notice you're bitching about his bitching. And he isn't bitching, so really you're the only bitcher here.

I thought it was odd that you would make the effort to start a thread with such a condescending post, suggesting that recruits were "caught" under the guise that their duty only consisted of drilling periods throughout the year.
It wasn't condescending, and before this retarded war, that WAS the national guard.

Of course the National Guard is also deployed to disaster areas around the country when they are needed. But, who exactly are we guarding the nation against? The threat of invasion from Canada?
Exactly. You guys do have a few duties. Basically stopping panic.

And of course, no one wants to be deployed overseas for an extended period of time

Than why do they join the military?

How the hell is his military service relevant? Also, I notice you're bitching about his bitching. And he isn't bitching, so really you're the only bitcher here.

It wasn't condescending, and before this retarded war, that WAS the national guard.

Exactly. You guys do have a few duties. Basically stopping panic.


Than why do they join the military?

His military service is relevant because the topic of his post is how the deployments of certain troops can be extended now, under new regulations. If he is not in, or wasn't at one point, or even doesn't have a close family member in, does this really affect him that much?

Whether or not it was condescending may be a matter of opinion. Whether or not the war is "retarded" is a matter for another thread. I won't bring politics into this.

People join the military for many reasons. Some people wish to have a career in the military. Some join because they can get aid for college tuition. Others believe that they have a responsibility to serve their country, as others did before them. My point is, I have never met anyone who joined specifically because they are eager to leave their families and friends to go fight in a hostile environment for a period of time.

And, if he wasn't bitching (or complaining) about this issue, then what was the point of this thread?

The point of this thread would be that the U.S. used a bait and switch.

His military service is relevant because the topic of his post is how the deployments of certain troops can be extended now, under new regulations.
Funny. I bet some of the officials who made this decision were never in the military.
If he is not in, or wasn't at one point, or even doesn't have a close family member in, does this really affect him that much?
It's called empathy.

Funny. I bet some of the officials who made this decision were never in the military.

It's called empathy.

I don't want his empathy.

His military service is relevant because the topic of his post is how the deployments of certain troops can be extended now, under new regulations. If he is not in, or wasn't at one point, or even doesn't have a close family member in, does this really affect him that much?

Whether or not it was condescending may be a matter of opinion. Whether or not the war is "retarded" is a matter for another thread. I won't bring politics into this.

People join the military for many reasons. Some people wish to have a career in the military. Some join because they can get aid for college tuition. Others believe that they have a responsibility to serve their country, as others did before them. My point is, I have never met anyone who joined specifically because they are eager to leave their families and friends to go fight in a hostile environment for a period of time.

And, if he wasn't bitching (or complaining) about this issue, then what was the point of this thread?

Then you aren't as knowledgable about servicemen as you seem to think you are.

There are plenty of people who want to go out and kill some of those terrorist iraqi's who killed americans, and wanted to nuke us before we invaded. This applies more to people going back, but plenty of people want to go to iraq. Well, not relatively, but they are around. I talked to a number of them.

And most of my fellow guardsmen didn't think they would get sent to iraq, or at least not as long as regular units were. You see, recruiters, at least in california, pull the whole "Ohh, sure, its possible you could go to iraq. But you might go to afghanistan, germany, the balkans, cuba, korea, etc. Most likely, you'll just stay home though."

Yeah. Thats why my former unit is in iraq right now.

I don't want his empathy.

Funny, I don't remember seeing "IMPERIAL BLACK, IM SO SORRY" in the title.

I don't want his empathy.
Well then, it's a good thing you don't speak for every guardsman and their families.

There are plenty of people who want to go out and kill some of those terrorist iraqi's who killed americans, and wanted to nuke us before we invaded. This applies more to people going back, but plenty of people want to go to iraq. Well, not relatively, but they are around. I talked to a number of them.
As have I.

I don't want his empathy.

Tough shit, even if you aren't worth it, you're getting it.

Tough shit, even if you aren't worth it, you're getting it.

And you deduced that from.... a few forum posts?

The point of this thread would be that the U.S. used a bait and switch.

You my friend are a moron. there is no bait and switch regarding military service in the national guard. Take time and read the laws and charters set up by your country before flapping your gums so much you beat yourself senseless with them while not actually making any valid point. The use of National Guard units was set up for use by the state and the federal gov't in the Militia Act of 1903 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Apparently the pentagon decided to change the rules for the national guard so that there is no limit to the ammount of active-duty deployment they can be sent on.

"Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq-Military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

My condolences to anyone who was caught in the "One weekend a month / 2 weeks a year" bait-and-switch.


You have your information in this almost as far out of context as does the New York Times.....which is a fairly common occurance from what I hear. And before you go off on a tangent I get that directly from the mouth of NYC natives....as I served a good deal of time with them ata checkpoint in Iraq when the 42nd ID of NY/NJ home base was deployed there in 2005. I returned to my home state in 2006 after completeing my tour of duty. And the facts are and have been that the National Guard has always been deployable for 24 months at a time......but that was in a 6 year time frame. This was to have been changed in Aug 2007 to read that they can be deployed for up to 24 months at a time with a mininum of 24 months in between each 24 month deployment as opposed to in a six year hitch. So as I repeat looks like both you and the liberal "who cares if it is right as long as it gets people upset" NYTimes have your facts a little out of context.

His military service is relevant because the topic of his post is how the deployments of certain troops can be extended now, under new regulations. If he is not in, or wasn't at one point, or even doesn't have a close family member in, does this really affect him that much?

Whether or not it was condescending may be a matter of opinion. Whether or not the war is "retarded" is a matter for another thread. I won't bring politics into this.

People join the military for many reasons. Some people wish to have a career in the military. Some join because they can get aid for college tuition. Others believe that they have a responsibility to serve their country, as others did before them. My point is, I have never met anyone who joined specifically because they are eager to leave their families and friends to go fight in a hostile environment for a period of time.

And, if he wasn't bitching (or complaining) about this issue, then what was the point of this thread?

So what you're trying to say is:

"GODDAMNIT BOY SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING PAPERS! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCUSS THE POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL GUARD WITHOUT PAPERS SHOWING THAT YOU ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THEM, BY GOD YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING STRUNG UP OR SHOT, YOU TRAITOROUS RED SONOFOABITCH!"


A) It isnt any of your business whether or not I am or have been in the service, while it is my business whether or not National Guard soldiers are getting fucked over by the higher-ups.

Get over yourself NOW.

You have your information in this almost as far out of context as does the New York Times.....which is a fairly common occurance from what I hear. And before you go off on a tangent I get that directly from the mouth of NYC natives....as I served a good deal of time with them ata checkpoint in Iraq when the 42nd ID of NY/NJ home base was deployed there in 2005. I returned to my home state in 2006 after completeing my tour of duty. And the facts are and have been that the National Guard has always been deployable for 24 months at a time......but that was in a 6 year time frame. This was to have been changed in Aug 2007 to read that they can be deployed for up to 24 months at a time with a mininum of 24 months in between each 24 month deployment as opposed to in a six year hitch. So as I repeat looks like both you and the liberal "who cares if it is right as long as it gets people upset" NYTimes have your facts a little out of context.



That isnt from the New York Times, that is from the Associated Press and just linked to on their website.

I assume you can find the same AP story on yahoo or a number of other news sources verbatim.

That isnt from the New York Times, that is from the Associated Press and just linked to on their website.

I assume you can find the same AP story on yahoo or a number of other news sources verbatim.

Does not matter if the NYTimes wrote or a writer for APNews.....the Times posted it to their site and their paper..... and so they accepted it for what it is.....and obviously failed to do a check on the information to see if it was all correct and to see if it was used in or out of context. So they are to blame as much as the APNews. I know when I write a paper for College or even for the local paper I am required to check my facts and make sure things are correct. Guess if you work for APNews or NYTimes facts no longer matter as long as what you write is sensational and sells papers.

And so far you have yet to address the fact that all that information is out of context and that the Guard can already deploy for 24 months at a time.

And most of my fellow guardsmen didn't think they would get sent to iraq, or at least not as long as regular units were. You see, recruiters, at least in california, pull the whole "Ohh, sure, its possible you could go to iraq. But you might go to afghanistan, germany, the balkans, cuba, korea, etc. Most likely, you'll just stay home though.

I've had the spiel thrown at me by a number of Michigan Army Guard recruiters and they're always straight up with me. However, I am prior service and I did one tour in Iraq while in the Regular Army, so that may have something to do with it. Still, I know several kids who have joined the Guard recently (yay for Michigan's terrible economy) and none of them had that bullshit fed to them either.

Guess if you work for the media in general facts no longer matter as long as what you write is sensational and sells papers.

Fixed.

I've had the spiel thrown at me by a number of Michigan Army Guard recruiters and they're always straight up with me. However, I am prior service and I did one tour in Iraq while in the Regular Army, so that may have something to do with it. Still, I know several kids who have joined the Guard recently (yay for Michigan's terrible economy) and none of them had that bullshit fed to them either.



Fixed.

Thanks Wallonochia I was temporarily confused in my spelling.

You have your information in this almost as far out of context as does the New York Times.....which is a fairly common occurance from what I hear. And before you go off on a tangent I get that directly from the mouth of NYC natives....as I served a good deal of time with them ata checkpoint in Iraq when the 42nd ID of NY/NJ home base was deployed there in 2005. I returned to my home state in 2006 after completeing my tour of duty. And the facts are and have been that the National Guard has always been deployable for 24 months at a time......but that was in a 6 year time frame. This was to have been changed in Aug 2007 to read that they can be deployed for up to 24 months at a time with a mininum of 24 months in between each 24 month deployment as opposed to in a six year hitch. So as I repeat looks like both you and the liberal "who cares if it is right as long as it gets people upset" NYTimes have your facts a little out of context.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a report from a reputable news source--the AP--with quotes from people like General Pace, David Chu, the Pentagon's chief of personnel, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates describing this, and on the other hand we have you, who has supposedly talked to some people in New York about this. Gee, I know who I find more credible.

*snip of some claptrap about left-wing media conspiracy*

As far as I can tell, the facts are straight, as is the interpretation. The editor fo the NY Times is a conservative, anyway. It is not a very liberal newspaper, and I shudder to think how conservative you must be to consider it so.

As far as I can tell, the facts are straight, as is the interpretation. The editor fo the NY Times is a conservative, anyway. It is not a very liberal newspaper, and I shudder to think how conservative you must be to consider it so.
Don't be too hard on him--it's easy to forget just how long the NY Times has been a target of a smear campaign by right-wingers and just how good a job they've done at it. It's one of those "big lies" that seems to become true over time.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a report from a reputable news source--the AP--with quotes from people like General Pace, David Chu, the Pentagon's chief of personnel, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates describing this, and on the other hand we have you, who has supposedly talked to some people in New York about this. Gee, I know who I find more credible.

I was pointing out the facts that prior to this APNews article that NG troops already could be deployed for 24 months at a time.....so would that not constitute not having your facts straight if it has already been like that?

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a report from a reputable news source--the AP--with quotes from people like General Pace, David Chu, the Pentagon's chief of personnel, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates describing this, and on the other hand we have you, who has supposedly talked to some people in New York about this. Gee, I know who I find more credible.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Check this page out. It shows why what you just said was fallacious reasoning. Remember one can have a correct conclusion, and still have poor reasoning. I.E. The sky is blue because I painted it. The sky may will still be blue, but the arguement is a fallacious one.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Check this page out. It shows why what you just said was fallacious reasoning. Remember one can have a correct conclusion, and still have poor reasoning. I.E. The sky is blue because I painted it. The sky may will still be blue, but the arguement is a fallacious one.Please don't condescend to me. My conclusion may well be wrong, but if it is, then it speaks to a major problem in the credibility of the AP as a whole, and they've built up enough goodwill to last a lot longer than that of a relatively new poster on an internet forum. If I have to choose, then I choose that which has the better track record.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Check this page out. It shows why what you just said was fallacious reasoning. Remember one can have a correct conclusion, and still have poor reasoning. I.E. The sky is blue because I painted it. The sky may will still be blue, but the arguement is a fallacious one.

Awwwwww... sumbunny just took iz first cwass on logic.

SNIP...That is their duty.

Thank you for doing your duty and serving your country. People who have never served on active duty or in the Gard or Reserves have no idea why people join.:(

Please don't condescend to me. My conclusion may well be wrong, but if it is, then it speaks to a major problem in the credibility of the AP as a whole, and they've built up enough goodwill to last a lot longer than that of a relatively new poster on an internet forum. If I have to choose, then I choose that which has the better track record.

There is a big credibility problem not just with one news agency but with most, if not all...... as you point out ones opinion does not make one credible....but you give the news that honor. All news agencies have a tendency to lean towards personal opinion of whoever is running the show. That is a fault of being human. Having posted on a forum more then 10,000 times does not make your opinion any better then someone who has posted less then 100. And if accepting someones word on built up goodwill then if the AP tells you the earth is flat that means you will beleive them because they have a better track record?

Awwwwww... sumbunny just took iz first cwass on logic.


Hey you still have not responeded to my comments on the CHarter of the National Guard I posted you to disclaim your facts about National Guard service and usage by the Federal Gov't. Is this because you are unwilling to discuss actual facts and prefer to just make fun of people? Or because your unsure of the proper ettiqutte(sp?) for a debate?

There is a big credibility problem not just with one news agency but with most, if not all...... as you point out ones opinion does not make one credible....but you give the news that honor. All news agencies have a tendency to lean towards personal opinion of whoever is running the show. That is a fault of being human. Having posted on a forum more then 10,000 times does not make your opinion any better then someone who has posted less then 100. And if accepting someones word on built up goodwill then if the AP tells you the earth is flat that means you will beleive them because they have a better track record?
So now, what do you base that credibility problem on? Verifiable evidence, or something that issued from your ass?

So now, what do you base that credibility problem on? Verifiable evidence, or something that issued from your ass?

You know for a teacher you don't seem to give anybody elses opinion as maybe being possible except for your own. I hope you give your students more encourage ment to think outside the box and to find out information for themselves and not just rrelying on what they see written in a newspaper or told on the TV every evening.

And I can make a comment based on personel experience about lack of credibility based on an agency leaning towards their bosses opinions as compared to stateing just facts and letting people make their own conclusions, rather then lacing a story with opinion intermixed with fact.

...snip... And the facts are and have been that the National Guard has always been deployable for 24 months at a time......but that was in a 6 year time frame. This was to have been changed in Aug 2007 to read that they can be deployed for up to 24 months at a time with a mininum of 24 months in between each 24 month deployment as opposed to in a six year hitch...snip...

Do you have a cite for this? The wiki cite you posted upthread does not have this information, and with all the news sites clogging the web, I'm having a hard time finding any solid facts.

You know for a teacher you don't seem to give anybody elses opinion as maybe being possible except for your own. I hope you give your students more encourage ment to think outside the box and to find out information for themselves and not just rrelying on what they see written in a newspaper or told on the TV every evening.

And I can make a comment based on personel experience about lack of credibility based on an agency leaning towards their bosses opinions as compared to stateing just facts and letting people make their own conclusions, rather then lacing a story with opinion intermixed with fact.

Two things. First of all, I never said your opinion was impossible--just that given my options of believing a pseudonymous poster on an internet forum or an internationally respected news agency, I put more weight on the latter until I'm given reason to do otherwise. If you can provide evidence outside of your own opinion that can convince me that you have it right and AP has it wrong--verifiable evidence--then I can be convinced to change my mind. But short of that, my experience says that the AP is probably right on this.

Secondly, you can make any comment you want, but unless you back it up--like with some systematic proof that the AP is regularly unreliable--it'll be roundly dismissed and with good reason. You've got the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Do you have a cite for this? The wiki cite you posted upthread does not have this information, and with all the news sites clogging the web, I'm having a hard time finding any solid facts.

Check out the Militia Act of 1903 Also known as the Dick Act as it was Introduced by Sen. Dick of Ohio.

Two things. First of all, I never said your opinion was impossible--just that given my options of believing a pseudonymous poster on an internet forum or an internationally respected news agency, I put more weight on the latter until I'm given reason to do otherwise. If you can provide evidence outside of your own opinion that can convince me that you have it right and AP has it wrong--verifiable evidence--then I can be convinced to change my mind. But short of that, my experience says that the AP is probably right on this.

Secondly, you can make any comment you want, but unless you back it up--like with some systematic proof that the AP is regularly unreliable--it'll be roundly dismissed and with good reason. You've got the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I will accept that.
And as for the Facts that Deployment for NG Units already being 24 months at a time and their validity for being deployed by the Federal gov't which is what I originally stated as saying AP was wrong about this being a new thing....I cite the Militia act of 1903 and subsequent additions and changes to it all done mostly in the early Teens and 20's of this century. The addition of a 24 month break inbetween 24 month deployments as compared to 24 months for every 6 years service is a new development that was set to go in to effect in Aug 2007, but as I stated we were already deployable for 24 months at a time...... and that is information also stated in the National Guard Charter.

Check out the Militia Act of 1903 Also known as the Dick Act as it was Introduced by Sen. Dick of Ohio.

I tried that, but was unable to find the exact info you mentioned in your previous post.

EDIT: Found it using "National Guard Charter"

Prior to the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the National Guard's general policy regarding deployment was that Guardsmen would be required to serve no more than six months overseas at any time. Due to strains placed on active duty units following the attacks, the possible deployment time was increased to 18 months. Additional strains placed on military units as a result of the invasion of Iraq further increased the amount of time a Guardsman could be deployed to 24 months. Current Department of Defense policy is that no Guardsman will be involuntarily activated for a total of more than 24 months (cumulative) in one six year enlistment period (this policy is due to change 1 August 2007, the new policy states that soldiers will be given 24 months between deployments of no more than 24 months, individual states have differing policies). The Army National Guard is composed of 325,000 troops and the Air National Guard about 106,000 personnel.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard#Constitutional_charter_of_the_National_Guard

Mind you, this does point out that the National Guard has had its policy drastically changed several times over the last five years, and each time the changes are more demanding. It would appear that the Bush administration has granted itself the power to unilaterally change the contract they have entered into with the people of the National Guard.

So much for supporting the troops.

That's rather insulting, to suggest that I joined because I wanted to "play soldier" every now and then.

Ok. Then why didn't you join the regular army?

Ok. Then why didn't you join the regular army?

My reasons are personal.

My reasons are personal.

Ok. Then why take the offense at the part-time soldier comment?

I tried that, but was unable to find the exact info you mentioned in your previous post.

EDIT: Found it using "National Guard Charter"



Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard#Constitutional_charter_of_the_National_Guard

Mind you, this does point out that the National Guard has had its policy drastically changed several times over the last five years, and each time the changes are more demanding. It would appear that the Bush administration has granted itself the power to unilaterally change the contract they have entered into with the people of the National Guard.

So much for supporting the troops.

Actually the use of the National Guard for periods longer then 6 months has been around prior to this recent development in Iraq. As history will point out The National Guard Divisions Served for All of World wars 1 and 2 most for more then 2 years at one time. The majority of divisions that stormed Utah and Omaha Beaches were NG Divisions. the 1st-25th Divisions of the Army are Active Duty, as well as the 82nd and 101st. 26th- 106th are Reserve and National Guard Divisions. If one were to look at a history book of WW2 you will see the Units by division and how long they were over in combat.

What the article showed was stated as being a general policy which is not the same as actual policy general policy is kind of guidelines not so much the rules.

Ok. Then why take the offense at the part-time soldier comment?

I have been Regular Army as well as National Guard....I take offense at someone telling me I am trying to "play soldier" the Guard are every bit as good as the Regulars they just choose to not do it 24/7 unless needed.

Actually the use of the National Guard for periods longer then 6 months has been around prior to this recent development in Iraq. As history will point out The National Guard Divisions Served for All of World wars 1 and 2 most for more then 2 years at one time. The majority of divisions that stormed Utah and Omaha Beaches were NG Divisions. the 1st-25th Divisions of the Army are Active Duty, as well as the 82nd and 101st. 26th- 106th are Reserve and National Guard Divisions. If one were to look at a history book of WW2 you will see the Units by division and how long they were over in combat.

What the article showed was stated as being a general policy which is not the same as actual policy general policy is kind of guidelines not so much the rules.


Then where does one find the actual policy?

It is difficult to have any meaningful debate if the facts are not at hand.

Then where does one find the actual policy?

It is difficult to have any meaningful debate if the facts are not at hand.

The problem is there in at hand......we would need to request the complete documents from the gov't unless it can be brought up via the LoC website which can access most gov't document. But I am unsure how that is done.

Ok. Then why take the offense at the part-time soldier comment?

It was the manner in which he said it.

My condolences to anyone who was caught in the "One weekend a month / 2 weeks a year" bait-and-switch.


To me (though it is a matter of opinion), he's saying "I pity those of you who joined and were dumb enough to buy into the idea that you would only be serving during drill periods and now you're being used by teh evilz administration!!1!1". I don't believe he started this thread in support of Guardsmen, but rather just to take a stab at the administration and those who were involved in this decision. I also believe that the stupid acronym he used in the title of this thread supports that (bend over, here it comes again).

It was the manner in which he said it.



To me (though it is a matter of opinion), he's saying "I pity those of you who joined and were dumb enough to buy into the idea that you would only be serving during drill periods and now you're being used by teh evilz administration!!1!1". I don't believe he started this thread in support of Guardsmen, but rather just to take a stab at the administration and those who were involved in this decision. I also believe that the stupid acronym he used in the title of this thread supports that (bend over, here it comes again).

See, I wondered why you got so twisted over that myself, because I didn't read it that way at all. I read it more like "Bush is coming to fuck you guys yet again and is calling it supporting the troops." There's no question that the Guard advertises itself as the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" service, and that's not a denigration of the service--that's how they identify themselves as a whole. NG's primary duty is advertised as being stateside, local--protecting the state during emergencies, etc. But that's not the way Bush has used them this time around, so to call this change a "bait and switch" is both accurate and fair.

See, I wondered why you got so twisted over that myself, because I didn't read it that way at all. I read it more like "Bush is coming to fuck you guys yet again and is calling it supporting the troops." There's no question that the Guard advertises itself as the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" service, and that's not a denigration of the service--that's how they identify themselves as a whole. NG's primary duty is advertised as being stateside, local--protecting the state during emergencies, etc. But that's not the way Bush has used them this time around, so to call this change a "bait and switch" is both accurate and fair.

It was that way back in the 1930's was it a bait and switch when FDR used it that way?

It was that way back in the 1930's was it a bait and switch when FDR used it that way?

Not having seen any of the advertising for the Guard at that period, I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Check this page out. It shows why what you just said was fallacious reasoning. Remember one can have a correct conclusion, and still have poor reasoning. I.E. The sky is blue because I painted it. The sky may will still be blue, but the arguement is a fallacious one.

You should probably learn what the 'Argument from Authority' fallacy actually entails before you talk down to someone like that; if you'd taken the time to read your own link then you'd know where you were going wrong. An Argument from Authority is only fallacious if the authority in question isn't a relevant authority or if they are unreliable or unnecessary for some other reason. The Nazz's appeal to relevant authorities is valid and not fallacious.

It might help if you thought of expertise as being akin to proficiency in a foreign language: if a professor of French insists that Voltaire's Candide should be translated in a certain way then their authority is a legitimate reference. If a professor of Sanskrit tried to make the same assertion then an appeal to their 'authority' would be fallacious.