The real ramifications at home from the war in Iraq

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
See, righties...these are some of the REAL issues Americans are facing, both now and into the future, thanks the decisions made by this administration. Maybe someday Wayne and Weasel will try to defend this - or at least accept some responsibility for it - in a manner other than completely avoiding it or just posting other liberal link assassinations that skip the subject at hand. However, I'm slowly starting to think that they, too, realize there are no defenses to this, because they simply avoid it. We are simply less prepared - far less in many respects - to deal with real (not imaginary) threats that have been proven to be non-existent to Americans. Weasel always clamors for the dems to step up and cut off funding to gain some credibility. At this point, neither of you have any on this subject, until you're willing to do the same thing.
------------


When the National Guard is Missing ...

An Ill Wind and American Policy

By ROSEMARY and WALTER BRASCH

America has already spent more than $80 billion in the past year on its "war on terrorism," and the President has asked Congress for another $87 billion, most of it to rebuild Iraq. The appropriated budget for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), dwindling each year, is $1.8 billion. Even more critical, many of the most experienced senior emergency management specialists are leaving the Agency, often replaced by political appointees with minimal disaster training.

Within hours, the 400-mile wide Isabel, a Category 3/4 hurricane packing winds of 100 140 miles per hour, will hit between North Carolina and New Jersey. Its victims will have to be content with leftovers. Our nation's disaster preparedness doesn't meet the needs that any sizeable disaster might bring. FEMA is severely underfunded. Red Cross disaster funds are negligible. With thousands of National Guard soldiers deployed-now up to a year each-most east coast states don't have the manpower or resources it needs for a sustained recovery program.

Because of limited access and egress from coastal areas, and stick construction of thousands of houses valued at $300,000 and more, the physical damage can be significant, says Frank Lepore of the National Hurricane Center. Heavy rains are expected into Pennsylvania and the northeast corridor, with probable flooding. The hurricane has the potential to cause a large loss of life, says Lepore.

Residents along the coastal areas hoping to cover their doors and windows in preparation for the storm are paying as much as 30 35 percent more for plywood than six months ago. It's not greed by the lumber yards, but supply. The federal government "bought most of our plywood to send to Iraq for rebuilding there," says Aaron Johnson of 84 Lumber in Raleigh, N.C. The scarcity of plywood is felt throughout the east coast. Complicating the problem, because of heavy rainfall in the summer, "most mills aren't open," says Mark Schneider, of Hugh's Lumber Co., Charleston, S.C.

FEMA's disaster relief fund, prior to an emergency allocation this past summer, was "at a dangerously low level," resulting in significant cut-backs on service, according to the National Emergency Management Association. The hurricane season isn't over until December. To understand what it could be like, it's necessary to look at the past-and then realize how much less prepared the nation is to handle the equivalent disaster.

Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 storm, hit the Florida coast in 1992 with the fury of what might be best described as a massive air attack. Neighborhoods were leveled; schools, churches, stores, and factories were destroyed; the people were left without shelter, food, water, gas, electricity-and jobs. It wasn't just for hours or days, but weeks, months, and in some cases, years.

The cost for Andrew is estimated at $25 billion, according to the Red Cross; insurance payouts were about $15 billion of that; several companies went into bankruptcy. The Red Cross, at the scene before the hurricane hit, was still working with its victims 10 years later.

Following Andrew in 1992, social service agencies-along with FEMA and the National Guard-fed, clothed, and sheltered the victims. The Guard from several states evacuated victims and policed against looters; it provided tents, water, and food; military trucks hauled debris, cleared by Guardsmen. They carried workers and materials to rebuild Florida.

Social service agencies provided emergency food, clothing, and shelter-often as far as 100 miles away from the destruction, since utilities were non-existent in the hurricane areas. Although FEMA was slow to react under the BushI Administration, it eventually provided significant assistance, and then was reorganized under the Clinton Administration to provide a more efficient response. Under Bush II, its efficiency is significantly less.

The Pennsylvania National Guard has adequate manpower, according to Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, with only 3,000 of its 20,000 member force currently deployed. However, most Guard units in other states have manpower and equipment shortages because of overseas deployment. Most state Guard units should be able to handle the immediate evacuation and recovery, according to Guard officers in several states. However, long term recovery will probably be a problem.

Because of deployments not only to Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Guant?namo Bay, the South Carolina National Guard is "short-handed," according to Lt. Col. Pete Brooks. That state's Guard is operating with less than 75 percent strength. Most of the Guard's trucks, bulldozers, and heavy equipment are in Iraq, according to Brooks. Senior officers in the New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina National Guards agree their manpower and equipment can handle the initial problems. It's long-term recovery that will drain their states' resources.

Because of current overseas deployment, with much of the remaining Guardsmen on active alert, the North Carolina National Guard is at half-strength, according to Senior Airman Lyndsey Leffel, the Guard's public affairs specialist. Senior officers in New Jersey and Virginia agree their manpower and equipment can handle the initial problems. It's long-term recovery that will drain their states' resources.

More than one-third of all combat forces in Iraq are the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard. With increasing demands in a war that doesn't seem to have any conclusion, the demands upon the Reserves and Guard are likely to increase significantly.

Governors can request assistance from Guard units in other states. But, with a wide-spread destruction expected, states will have to hire private companies. The cost to to do the work the National Guard could do could be several hundred million dollars.

The Red Cross disaster relief fund is in "a very precarious situation," according to Kelly Donaghy, Red Cross spokesman. "We like to have at least $56 million on hand," she says. "We have almost nothing." The Red Cross estimates it would need "at least $100 million" for recovery from Isabel. Funds donated to the Red Cross for the 9/11 Fund may not be spent on anything but 9/11 victims. All social service agencies which normally would be involved with disaster relief have had to do with less as unemployment and a declining economy under the current administration, combined with the largest national deficit in more than a decade, has affected charitable contributions.

When a substantial minority of Americans opposed sending several hundred thousand soldiers to Iraq, and argued that the costs of war would haunt us for decades, they were branded unpatriotic. When they argued that the Department of Homeland Security was more of a public relations ploy than any serious attempt to coordinate homeland security, they were branded traitors.

Iraq, as we now know, even under a ruthless thug, didn't harbor the terrorists the President claimed, it had no weapons of mass destruction, and it posed no imminent threat to the security of the American people.

But, a Category 3 hurricane does pose an imminent threat, as do forest fires, blizzards, and floods. Local and state emergency management agencies, under influence by the federal government, and with significant financial incentive, have redirected much of their focus to anti-terrorism training and prevention. The Department of Homeland Security, instead of concentrating its resources upon a disaster that can kill several thousand Americans and leave several hundred thousand injured and homeless, is still trying to figure out why it can't stop people with box cutters from boarding airplanes in America.

While we can't put natural disasters into the same category as an al-Qaeda attack, they both encompass a fear of imminent danger. Death and destruction by a Category 3/4 hurricane is more imminent than an attack by Iraq ever was-and could leave more death and destruction than 9/11. Neither our home nor our land is secure.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i thought we already did this "woe is me" national guard thread?.......one wonders why the country didn`t collapse during ww`s 1,2 and viet nam?....didn`t have natural disasters back then,i guess,did we?.....

guess what?...this country can(to use one of your metrosexual buzzwords)"multi-task"......


the real "ramifications" could come from trying to downplay the radical islamist threat.....which could have repercussions much more catastrophic than any twister or hurricane...

""A RADICAL plan by Al-Qaeda to take over the Sunni heartland of Iraq and turn it into a militant Islamic state once American troops have withdrawn is causing alarm among US intelligence officials.

A power struggle has emerged between the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, an organisation with ambitions to become a state which has been set up by Al-Qaeda, and more moderate Sunni groups. They are battling for the long-term control of central and western areas which they believe could break away from Kurdish and Shi’ite-dominated provinces once the coalition forces depart.

According to an analysis compiled by US intelligence agencies, the Islamic State has ambitions to create a terrorist enclave in the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, Nineveh and parts of Babil.

“Al-Qaeda are on the way to establish their first stronghold in the Middle East,” warned an American official. “If they succeed, it will be a catastrophe and an imminent danger to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

The US conviction that the Islamic State could seize power is based on its use of classic Al-Qaeda tactics and its adoption last October of a draft constitution. This was entitled Notifying Mankind of the Birth of the Islamic State and was posted on a website based in Britain. The group named 10 ministers under its emir, Abu Amer Al-Baghdadi. They included a war minister, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajer who is also known as Abu Ayub al-Masri and is Al-Qaeda’s commander in Iraq.""

Last week the Islamic State released a video that showed the execution of five Iraqi army soldiers and four police officers.

The Islamic State’s ruthlessness, combined with extreme religious fundamentalism, marks it out from other Sunni factions.

As well as the nine victims shown on the video, the group claimed to have captured an Iraqi army colonel and two of his bodyguards. They threatened to kill him within 24 hours unless demands to release Al-Qaeda sympathisers were met.

The Islamic State is spearheading the insurgency against US forces and troops loyal to Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister. In recent months it has been responsible for chlorine gas bombs and numerous suicide attacks on civilian targets.

It is also behind the deadliest roadside bombs that have racked up American casualties this year, although US military sources are now confident that in recent weeks they have gained the upper hand with raids aimed at both the Islamic State’s leadership and its bomb-making factories. “The mood is positive but not foolishly so,” said a Pentagon source last week. “The marines are confident they’ve pushed the bad guys out. There is an element of propaganda about the all-powerful Al-Qaeda.”

The Islamic State’s brutal targeting of fellow Sunnis has made it unpopular among some who see Al-Qaeda as foreign influenced and too ready to attack Iraqis as well as US forces.

According to American diplomats, one of the topics of the visit to Saudi Arabia yesterday by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, was Al-Qaeda’s power in Iraq.

Five US soldiers were killed and three were missing after their unit was attacked in a Sunni insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad yesterday.""" Additional reporting: Sarah Baxter, Washington..................................................

i know,i know.......if not for the iraq invasion,al qaeda wouldn`t be there....but,they`d still be in the phillipines,thailand(throughout asia),africa,throughout europe.......spreading like a cancer....and we`d still be dealing with afghanistan...

and saddam..along with iran,would be feverishly developing a nuclear arsenal to counter-balance ahmadinajhad....

you know that`s true...

and you can bet that afghanistan would getting much more of al qaeda`s attention if there were no iraq.....

there are times when i think we ought to do what all you guys accused us of doing from the start....

secure the oil fields and pipelines, start pumping oil out of there as fast as humanly possible and let the jackals eat each other.,,,that`s all the french and our so-called allies cared about...

we won't do that, of course....we're the good guys....we're the lone ranger, the boy scouts, and the peace corps.......we believe in peace, love and brotherhood and nothing can shake us from our unwavering belief in the fundamental goodness of all mankind.....

all the while insanity slashes at our throat and we blame ourselves and seek the reasons...our own ignorance,stupidity and body politic subject us to a death from 1000 cuts and we blame ourselves for provoking them......

we make concessions......they are ignored and new demands are made.....we pour money into their coffers and we are accused of greed...... we seek to set them free and we are branded oppressors......

and we wonder what "we're" doing wrong...... whatever it is,it`s been going on through democratic as well as republican administrations....

we have institutionalized national suckerhood.....


they`re coming for us.....make no mistake....you can laugh at these threats we`re circumventing.....but,as soon as you guys take the whitehouse...the patriot act will be either repealed or ham-strung...we`ll demolish abu gharaib and bring all the jihadi`s to the u.s.....

we`re already trying to give them the rights of american citizens....

you`ll get your wish soon enough....

a year and a half....be patient...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,481
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
The solution is really quite simple--since Soros-Moveon-codepink and the blogs that whine about this situation certainly don't want to join military--why don't they lets those that do--continue doing their primary job--and rally "their" troopers to go help in these disaters areas. They can get 10,000 up in days notice for protest--why not do something constructive--of course that would be solving problem and not whining about it--not their Modus operandi ;)
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,055
1,343
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
The solution is really quite simple--since Soros-Moveon-codepink and the blogs that whine about this situation certainly don't want to join military--why don't they lets those that do--continue doing their primary job--and rally "their" troopers to go help in these disaters areas. They can get 10,000 up in days notice for protest--why not do something constructive--of course that would be solving problem and not whining about it--not their Modus operandi ;)

What about believing in the war so much that you would send your two unemployed daughters to fight the good fight. Apparently, Bush only believes enough in the war to send other peoples children.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The solution is really quite simple--since Soros-Moveon-codepink and the blogs that whine about this situation certainly don't want to join military--why don't they lets those that do--continue doing their primary job--and rally "their" troopers to go help in these disaters areas. They can get 10,000 up in days notice for protest--why not do something constructive--of course that would be solving problem and not whining about it--not their Modus operandi ;)

Well, at least Weasel made an effort to talk about things...I commend him for that. I will post on that in a while. I see once again I post on this subject and Wayne merely blames the media and liberal outlets for all of our problems, and avoids the post. And so it goes in Wayne's World.

The most striking thing about your post is blasting the liberal factions for not joining up and fighting this war - literally. I assume you hold Bush and Cheney in the same light? Nah, probably not...that's probably just an issue with non-conservative liars (i.e: the media). I SERIOUSLY wonder if Bush would have joined TODAY's National Guard, knowing that he might actually have to appear in harms way, and not hide out on weekends away from the fellow soldiers. I only mention it, because you opened the door, Wayne.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Now, on to Weasel's post. As for the story you posted...I find it interesting that your primary focus now (after four plus years of fighting in Iraq) is how strong Al-Qaida is getting in Iraq. For the life of me, I don't remember one story about that until the past year or so...you know...after they realized how easy it would be to kill Americans and anyone else they wanted to that got in the way if they actually went to Iraq. I also notice in that story that a Pentagon source says the mood there is positive and they have pushed the bad guys out. He goes on to say that there is an element of propaganda from the all-powerful Al Qaida. Talk about an oxy-moronical connundrum...which is it? Care to take a shot at that one, Wease? It's your story, my friend. So what is the propaganda the Pentagon and Prez are laying out now...that we have to stay the course and actually finally battle some Al-Qaida dudes in Iraq, since they finally got there? Or that the threat is overblown by (I guess the liberal media, I dunno :shrug: ) and Al Qaida is not all it's blown up to be?

In your original dissertation, you said the real threat would come from downplaying the real threat of radical islamacism. I agree that would be a real threat. We should have focused on that - and not lost our focus - from September 12 until this very day. We should have stayed and hunted down the man that remains the figurehead of the real threat to us. And we didn't do that. And it's your administration's fault. This one is on your guys, not the other way around. We are still living with that decision, and it was wrong.

We did already do a National Guard thread. You and Wayne ignored it, so I thought I'd post more facts about how much less prepared we are here at home. We learn more every day, and I fear what we will learn during the tornado/hurricane season, and God forbid if one of those imbedded cell attacks come to fruition here at home. I think we learned how fragile that safe feeling (they haven't hit us here again...) can be. They certainly have hit us abroad, but are sadly able to hit us every day in Iraq. And now, they are mobilized and resurgent - or not - depending on what you are trying to sell.

I don't know if Afghanistan would be getting more Al-Qaida attention if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Weren't most of those guys already there and in Pakistan? How many of them would we have rid the world of - including Bin Laden, probably - had we maintained our full force there? Wouldn't that have been a much stronger message against terror than what the admin chose to do? Of course it would, and you SHOULD know that. I honestly don't know where Iraq's nu-cu-lar program would be right now. We didn't know back then, obviously, and we probably wouldn't know for sure now. But I honestly would have preferred to find out in a better way than we chose - which turned up nothing, as we all know. Or very little, and nothing to signify he would have been ready in the coming years. Except for mainly histrionic conservative blogs, who forward the "possibilities" and unsubstantiated fears that breed unnecessary reactions.

Here's a thought...why not secure the oil fields and allow the Iraqi people and corporations to use the oil to help repair their country and pay us back for "all we've done" for their country? It's what we were told was going to happen. What DID happen? We secured the fields, and the administration crafted the plan to allow international (mainly American) oil companies to set up operations there and take the profits away from the American people AND the Iraqi people. And THAT is a fact. A sad one, that blows your theory to smithereens.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
A very well constructed post, Chadman. You addressed Weasel's ramblings in a clear a thorough manner. ....But why? You know what will happen.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
What about believing in the war so much that you would send your two unemployed daughters to fight the good fight. Apparently, Bush only believes enough in the war to send other peoples children.

sorry gmroz....i thought that you were above this kind of post.

our military is voluntary...unless the bush girls have voluntered for the military there is no more expectation of them going than other people of similiar age....

i'll wait until you or somebody else (stevie ?) will post that it was their father who started the war....

my answer will be..that is the way it goes. maybe we should have a constitutional ammendment that states that any president who sends troops to war should have his/her children also go....
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Not all states are in a ruff spot. But if you have a few right next to each other it hurts recover efforts. Here in Wisconsin were not in to bad of shape still at 80% with our guard. But if we let this dam Iraq mess drag on and on it will hurt more and more. It will get to where we can't take care of things here at home as if we had another attack. Almost like the Bush they will follow us home over and over speech.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
All I know for sure is that NOBODY who enlisted in the National Guard several years ago would have expected any posibility of serving 15 month stints overseas in a ME country with serious risk of IED casualties.

I know that military enlistment is voluntary, but the National Guard has always been a slightly different creature in terms of foreign conflicts. Even in Vietnam, the National Guard did not go overseas at the current rate. There is something that doesn't feel right about the current way the Guard is used. ...Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the Guard was never created for this kind of scenario.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,481
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Whats harder than hitting a 10 team parlay??

Trying to convince liberals people actually volunteer to be in harms way for the benefit of others than themselves.

We been in iraq since 3-02--any prior 4 year enistment ran out in 3-06--yet they continue to enlist and no draft in sight--


In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
See, Smurph? They all knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and they should just shut up and not care about being blown up in Iraq. You are such an abettor.

I like some of the verbiage in Wayne's post, though. I guess these National Guardspeople have to obey the law and regulations...too bad our administration does not have to live by the same mantra...they get to ignore them whenever the situation gets tough for them.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The guards first responsible is home and our borders. Next is fill in as needed for regular army.
The lack of draft has put more pressure on guard. It's true in Nam very few were sent. Draft was filling the holes.These are all things your leader ship is to think about before pulling the trigger. Like MC Cain said again last night. This war with Iraq was screwed up from the start.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Not sure why our military is under pressure to use National Guard forces...I keep reading Wayne's posts that say how strong our enlistment and re-enlistment numbers are...would think that would be enough, to hear him tell it.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top