Skip to main content

View Diary: Southern National Guards defying Hagel order to recognize same-sex military spouses (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

      •  it this how secession gets its military forces nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        imchange, Larsstephens

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

        by annieli on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:00:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, tuffie: (8+ / 0-)

          We don't need another War Between the States complete with cannons and jets.

          Considering that you may have thought you were making a joke, let me just remind you of ONE battle's worth of carnage during the last such conflict.

          The notion that we could "pretty please" waste as many lives here in the US in a day as the NATO troops lost during the current conflict in the Middle East OUGHT to shock and appall you -- and suggesting we should do so in such a snarky tone as you have chosen says an awful lot about the kind of American, let alone human being, you allegedly are.

          LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:21:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  difference is we cut off federal payments (8+ / 0-)

            and they starve

          •  Yeah. Whatever. Because I want a new Civil War. (7+ / 0-)

            Geezus ... are you serious?

            I said Lincoln blew it and he did.  Had he let them secede, there might not have been a first Civil War and we'd be rid of that benighted region.  Including your wonderful Texas.  Somehow we would have made up the difference.

            On that, I am semi-serious.

            'The kind of American, let alone human being' I am.

            Christ, lighten the fuck up.

            •  Yeah, i'm serious: bloodshed and grief (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TexasTom, Nebraskablue

              is nothing to joke about.

              Take the rest of your bigotry and shove it where the sun won't shine. It'll go good with your attitude (and your rectocranial inversion syndrome).

              LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

              by BlackSheep1 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:51:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  BlackSheep1 (0+ / 0-)

                Give it up now while you're far behind.  You're embarrassing yourself and other Southerners.

                •  so to you there was no grief or bloodshed (0+ / 0-)

                  among the Yankee troops or their families? Wow.

                  LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                  by BlackSheep1 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:26:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Weren't federal troops used to enforce... (0+ / 0-)

           desegregation? Ike sent in the Screaming Eagles to counter the National Guard sent to block the Little Rock Nine. Yes, secession has been a threat used in our past, but through the mediation of Henry Clay and the command of a 1950s GOP President, we've only had 1 Civil War. The South lost the last one and should they decide to "Rise Again," we might just let them. Means a lot less use of our troops once Global Warming floods all of Florida and much of the Missippi Valley! Great way to save tax dollars, since they get more money than they pay out!

            •  Lincoln did not blow it. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1, Subterranean, PeterHug

              You merely prove you do not know anything about him.
              Moreover, we are in a Cold Civil War today.

              "It ain't over till it's over."-Yogi Berra

              by mock38 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:43:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Agree with Blacksheep (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1, Jimmy Crackcorn, Matt Z
              Christ, lighten the fuck up.
              And I quoted the above bit of text from you because I've noticed that it is never a good sign when people post offensive comments and then respond by suggesting that those who were offended lack a sense of humor.

              Adding expletives to that bit of "advice" further amplifies that point, and not in your favor.

              Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

              by TexasTom on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:59:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Texas Tomb (0+ / 0-)

                And we're supposed to heed YOUR advice, right?  Mehhhh.. I think I'll pass.  Texas has a big problem.  Mexico doesn't want you... they have enough problems.  Canada doesn't want you... they're too intelligent to take on troublemakers.  I think you should just stay where you are, be quiet, and quit embarrassing yourself!

            •  And let them remain a slave power? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TKO333, Nailbanger

              That's just disgusting.  Lincoln did right to fight the war and abolish slavery.  

              But now I'd be more amenable to letting the leave, as long as we pull all federal funding.  If these fuckers secede, I do not one fucking cent of my taxes going to them.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:01:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The states are too economically interdependent... (0+ / 0-)

                ...for a breakup to work now.  It would be a disaster all around.  Moreover, the North would be faced with a massive refugee crisis as people who don't want to live in an unrestrained South flee by the thousands if not millions.  And at some point, the border would have to be sealed.  Wouldn't it be ironic if the North had to build a wall to keep Southerners out?

                •  Borders sealed??? (0+ / 0-)

                  Just what gives you the idea that Northerners, Easterners, Westerners, et al, would be opening their arms to the very people that aren't happy with the USA as it is???!  Nooo way, Jóse!!!  No settling for the crankies on ANY US soil.  Why on earth would one invite cancer into a clean body when it has just survived a heart transplant?
                  No, we're smarter than that!!!  You scoot, you scoot!  For good, not just a vacation!

                •  Building a wall (0+ / 0-)

                  No walls.  No immigration from the South to the North.  They have full use of the seaports to move anywhere they want.  Not a problem... call Jóse's Moving Services... fast, dependable, reliable.

            •  Thanks a lot, my ancestors would still be slaves. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean
          •  Hey, Black Sheep - in regard to hey, Tuffie (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Secede is not the same as Civil War.   Yes, the Civil War was horrid (and, interestingly, odd to see so many people in the South hold re-enactment events...and continue to fly the Confederate flag)....

            But perhaps we have come to a point where clearly a number of Southern States do not want to be a part of the Union (except to get back more tax funds than they pay in).

            Would it be so bad to let them go?    I have often wondered this.    I would feel sorry for their populations (I feel sorry for them already) and would expect a mass exodus of several groups...but if those states wish to live in an imaginary past world.... I say let them.    And let the rest of us move forward.

            We could also entertain restoring statehood if they wished - and if they met the requirements - you know - supporting the law of the land.

          •  BlackSheep is a good-fitting name (0+ / 0-)

            It would stand to reason that these nematodes shouldn't even be mentioned, much less tolerated.  Either toe the line or move your butts off USA soil.  Islands are relatively cheap today... IF one can find one big enough for sale.  Something to ponder.

      •  Because, as we all know, the best (5+ / 0-)

        way to ensure that gays (and other groups) get treated fairly in southern states is have these states form their own country.

        "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

        by anonevent on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:26:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It goes both ways (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TKO333, skrekk

          imagine how much better off the rest of the country would be if the South hadn't blocked national health care for nearly a century.  FDR would probably have implemented single payer if not for the southerners.  That's a lot of blood and treasure sacrificed to keep those antediluvians in the Union.  

          I'm not arguing that we should have let them go, only pointing out that we also sacrifice our liberty and well-being by keeping them in the Union.  We pull them forward, but they drag us back.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:05:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But would they put into their secession document (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        that they're seceding so they can continue to discriminate the same way they put in their Civil War secession document that they were seceding to preserve slavery?  I want them to be honest about it and put it into writing so there's no revision of history in 10 years or so where they say it's all about protecting the institution of marriage instead of what it is - preserving their "right to be bigots".

      •  Secession? Absolutely! (0+ / 0-)

        I have no problem with secessionists!  However... where are they going to move to?  The land belongs to the USA.  They only get to take their household goods, personal possessions, and the like.  The lands stay, they have to move.  No more government freebies - insurance, health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, government programs, etc. Who wants them?  Who knows?!  Mexico?  They have problems of their own.  Canada?  Canada is way too intelligent to lower the IQ of their country with southern belles and beaus.
        No, I think the southern states had better be damn grateful we even let them sniff our freedoms in the good ol' USA.  They have it so good they aren't even aware of how good they have.  I think a few hundred General Shermans need to march through the South for another beans n' wienies picnic!  Couldn't hurt!

    •  money talks. lack of money screams. (18+ / 0-)

      is there a way to 'hit em where it hurts, so badly, that they beg to be let back in to the union' ?

      strip their funding, court-martial (in effect) ripping of ensignia, and whoa is this not mutinous/treasonous and a shot (again) from the pop-gun of fools ?

      demonstrated insubordination = freeze on all funds.

      (no, birds aren't permitted to serve other than as ensignia and such (and cool nicknames on jet fighters) but we do feel our pledge is of allegiance to the republic, although we enjoy romney-care here in massachooooosetts, and are glad it's gone national. heh.)

      Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes. @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.

      by greenbird on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:37:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was thinking they should close some bases (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, hkorens, shoeless, Nailbanger

        but I don't know if you can do that with the national guard, which I believe also function as the state militia.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:31:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  National Guard bases, no (8+ / 0-)

          they can't close those.

          But just about every one of those states except WV has at least one big military base.

          And TX has a bunch of them.

          The DOD can't just close them, there's a commission that does that. But the DOD can sure as hell downsize them. Transfer some units somewhere else. Downsize some of the contractor duties.

          •  I think you are confusing military bases with NG (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            salmo, Nailbanger

            armories. The "bases" the commission deals with are federal, U.S. military installations and not at all where the NG controls things. Thus the inconvenience mentioned about sending people to get ID on federal bases.

            In general NG controls "armories" where equipment is stored and drills (classroom type stuff, with "formations" and such) are held and they train with weapons and in the field on U.S. installations. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any completely state NG controlled "base" though there may be some "camps" scattered about.

            The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

            by pelagicray on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:29:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are a number of them in almost every state. (0+ / 0-)

              Camp Swift - TX that I am personally aware of.
              Camp Mabry - Tx, I used to work there.

              The thing is, there isn't anything in the way of equipment on them.

              •  Yeah, the "camps" that were pretty much camps. (0+ / 0-)

                The NG camps I recall were pretty much exactly that, a place about as often used for political fish fry events and such as any "training" and pretty sparse with a few buildings and lots of woods. In no way a "base" with lots of logistical and other infrastructure. I see from a quick Google that they have become quite a lot more elaborate (those federal funds!) with real buildings and better infrastructure. Maybe those funds have turned some of those old "camps" into mini "bases"!

                The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                by pelagicray on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:36:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  no but they can transfer all the equipment out (8+ / 0-)

          move every piece of gear that is federal out of the

          remove every paid full time technician, have them
          either TDY to other states or withdraw the funding.

      •  I do not fully understand why (10+ / 0-)

        we need a MS National Guard at all. Christ, do we really spend two thirds of a BILLION dollars a year on them?  To protect from what?  The distant possibility of a hurricane? Tell the MS National Guard to self-fund or disband, and give some of that money to FEMA, the Department of Justice, or better yet, use it to fund healthcare in the state with the worst health stats in the union.

        I mean, seriously, why do we bother with the MS National Guard?  It's an employment program. There are better ways to do stimulus funding.  Slim it down or eliminate it altogether.  This is a perfect excuse to start cutting.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:00:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because we need to cut Medicare, SS, and (4+ / 0-)

          Medicaid.  What are you, some kind of MORAN!

          Republicans - No solutions, just reasons why other peoples solutions will not work.

          by egarratt on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:17:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is political, VERY political and a sort of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill, TKO333, salmo, ModerateJosh

          state sacred cow in Congress. How political? Two of my comments here indicate that. First, it is a way for little state officials to don very fancy gold braid and, though not even real field grade officers, get the perks of a general in a post with a bit more prestige than a pure state guard "commander" might. Second, though probably not in real importance and maybe graft and corruption, is the money and equipment flow.

          Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in lots of NG units, but the top levels tend to be very much your state level pols and there you often have problems. It sounds a bit like a set up, but the downright small town "Peyton Place" gossip mill backstabbing is often the case as noted here in the story of how a USAF Captain, one whether "justified" or not refused orders on active duty, got jumped up to Lt. General and "serves" as a Maj. General.

          As I noted in one of those comments, my opinion is that we should de fund the NG, let the states take over that function with a more civilianized state guard for disasters and such and then really beef up the federal Reserve forces, also locally based and meeting in their armories, with the funding now going to the states. By the way, all branches of service have federal reserves.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:45:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you on this... (4+ / 0-)

            There is a legitimate reason to have an army, air force, navy reserve, but this really seems like a federal function to me, more than a state function. Shift the focus from the states to the feds. That's got to be good advice for just about everything in MS, anyway.  Shift funding and control to the feds, shrink the reserves by perhaps 20% and dramatically reduce the state national guards.  I wish it were that easy!

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:57:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The NG heritage is in the colonial and early (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              national days and was the rule really until after the Second World War when we went right into the Cold War. In those times, when mobilization had the leisure of taking months, travel was at best at the pace of rail road capability it made sense. I find people very surprised to learn that when Pearl Harbor stripped the fuzzy pink dreams from most eyes the United States Army was a lesser one than Czechoslovakia's army. That tradition of NG and Minuteman was strong into WW II—before realities of modern war showed just how foolish that could be. Lots of NG officers had to be killed off or relieved, indeed no few Regulars too, before things got more professional. In a post atomic bomb world with peace to war being maybe minutes and not even hours the NG model became obsolete in my opinion. Today's heavy use of the NG for "peacetime" overseas warfare is very unusual.

              I think we would be better off not shrinking, but building up the Reserve forces and slashing the military NG to zero replacing it with whatever the states need and can support as a professional reserve disaster meeting organization.

              I see two advantages immediately. The Reserves, already much more tightly in the DoD supply line, would be brought up to what was once (been a while) Ready Reserve and, logistics wise, active duty status. That reserve force would be much more ready for the very rapid mobilization modern events require. On the state side the disaster function would probably be better served by an organization with military style organization, communications and such without the full military trappings. In states that are serious about that, and most definitely not in secession scheming, the already civilian adjuncts to those state guards might benefit from some of that NG cash and pulling in skilled people with no desire to qualify on weapons. With our society already mostly without military experience and that falling on so few disaster teams freed from "playing soldier" with overseas deployment lurking in the future emergency response might really benefit.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 12:40:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Those armories were built to squash labor unrest (4+ / 0-)

          The proliferation of National Guard armories following the Railroad Strike of 1877 were expressly to suppress labor.  In that strike, and many following, owners found that the local police and local authorities would not fire on (and bayonet, etc) their friends and relatives on the picket line.  So, they brought in goons and eventually federal troops - now the National Guard.  They built armories to house them and advertise their readiness.  That history is now remembered as "keeping the peace" during unrest between labor and capital.  I think we know what the euphemism actually means.  None of that peacekeeping was directed at owners of capital - Rockefeller and the like - whose goons generally started the violence and did by far the most of it.  Instead, time and again it was workers and their families who were shot in the streets, in their tents, and on their picket lines.  Anyway, the armories stand even to this day as mute reminders of whose side our government chose when push came to shove.  Many here have noted the similarities between our time and the Gilded Age, so a reminder of the role of armories in the struggles of that time is in order.  

          A review of the record of National Guard enforcing desegregation shows a different response.  In Little Rock, for example, the 101st Airborne was flown in following Governor Faubus' withdrawal of Arkansas Guard units.  Kennedy sent in Federal Marshals in response to racist mobs, and when he federalized the Alabama National Guard, he also flew in Federal troops.  In 1965, Wallace insisted that Johnson nationalize the Alabama National Guard, rather than take responsibility for its use to protect civil rights marchers.  So, again and again in that pivotal national struggle, the National Guard in Southern states was compromised by their governors.  

          The longer you study the question you raised in your comment, the more clouded the continuing rationale for those National Guard units becomes.

        •  Half the forces in the Middle East are NG (0+ / 0-)

          ....this is what happens when you go "all volunteer."  I know a lot of NG guys on their third rotation in to Afghanistan.

          Half the troops in Iraq and Afghan are NG

      •  I would say the DoD... (4+ / 0-)

        should take several escalating steps to show they are serious and in charge.

        1) Refuse to accept National Guard trainees from the states that are not in compliance with DOD directives.  No basic training, no MOS training, no professional development training.

        If that fails to get their attention
        2) Begin transfer of all federal military equipment from the state.

        3) Revoke Federal recognition of officers commissions and warrants,  stop accrual of Federal retirement & pay benefits, and revoke access to DOD facilities and systems for all personnel.

        Freeze all Federal funding of National Guard activities.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site