WOT has left US MORE vulnerable than ever

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
That's right. The WOT has left the US mainland MORE vulnerable to natural disaster and terrorist attack, rather than making it safer for US citizens. The stated motives and objectives of the WOT are nothing more than talk. The real outcome of the WOT so far is a nation less able to protect and defend itself than ever.


from link below
National Guard Chief Lieutenant General Steven Blum recently noted that the Guard has only about 35 percent of what is officially required to respond to hurricane, natural disasters, and possible terrorist attacks at home.




We find ourselves in this situation for two reasons: First, we have traditionally under-funded the National Guard’s equipment levels. Secondly, much of the equipment that the Guard does have is being used in the ongoing war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the Middle East and Central Asia. And there is no prospect that we will see it again back in the States anytime soon.


National Guard Equipment Stocks



from link below
Senator Durbin's office has released even more details about the National Guard's equipment shortages:
Durbin said National Guard units in Illinois often fare even worse than the national average and equipment inventories of Illinois National Guard units have been seriously depleted. For example, the inventory tallies show that Illinois Guard units are assigned only:

# 4 percent of the medium trucks needed to maintain full readiness (6 of 166 medium trucks)

# 8 percent of the heavy trucks needed to maintain full readiness (6 of 79 heavy trucks)

# 47 percent of night vision devices (1503 of 3220 night vision devices)

# 63 percent of ground to air radios (766 of 1218 radios)

While these numbers alone are cause for serious concern, the situation may actually be much worse. Some of this assigned equipment is unavailable for use by the state because it is currently in Iraq or elsewhere.


Feingold, Durbin call for more equipment for National Guard.

I'll bet this is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. We are setting ourselves up to be screwed big time by the federal government of our own country. If we have another big disaster, or terrorist attack, we will not have the equipment available to respond. I saw a report on the news (couldn't find the link) the other day that many NG units have only 5% of their equipment available because it has all been shipped to Iraq, and when NG troops rotate home, they leave their equipment there, while the replacement troops bring in more equipment with them. It is almost like the government is purposely leaving us without the means to defend ourselves on our home soil. Why?




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I don't know what the WOT is could you explain what it is, I want to know what it's claimed to be not what it is from a conspirisists point of view....



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Our government has declared 'war on terror'. That means the US is at war with terrorists, not with any specific nation or group, unless our government has declared a group to be a terrorist group, or a nation to be knowingly and willingly harboring and supporting terrorists or terrorist groups. Even then, that doesn't mean the US will necessarily attack said nation or group.

The amorphous declaration itself leaves great leeway for our government to act, or not to act. The fact that we are 'at war' gives the President and the federal government special powers they would not have, and do not have, when we are at peace. I am coming to suspect that these powers themselves, not the terrorist threat itself, is the reason war was declared. In my mind, this is not even a clear cut and legal definition of 'war', hence the declaration of war itself may not be legal under the Constitution of the US.

It is all designed to be very confusing and alarming to us the citizens, and I don't think my answer to your question has cleared up that confusion one bit. The outcome of the decision to declare 'war on terror' though, has definitely been to erode the perception of safety and security here at home, and by extension, around the world. Just look at the results.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
So.... no chance the title could have been, -Natl. Guard equipment at low levels-? Of course not, it has to be “more vulnerable than ever”, I mean really, in our 230 year history we are more vulnerable than ever? Perhaps just a tad bit hyped? No?

Seriously, the problem is that once Natl. Guards leave Iraq they leave their equipment behind for the next rotating troops to use. For this the Pentagon is proposing to spend a substantial amount of money in 06/07 to cover for those lost assets of the National Guard.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well I understand what you mean, but what kind of powers does he receive?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
By 'more vulnerable than ever', I meant since the attacks and the declaration of the war, and its the truth. I find it especially troubling that military power is becoming more and more centralized in the hands of a federal government bent on taking away, not protecting, the rights of the average citizen. Think about it. That is exactly what is happening.

The War Powers Act of 1973

Really, the only way for the Congress to stop this thing now is to enact the 'power of the purse', and cut off funding. The governmnet is going to run out of money, and we will become the United States of Corporate Greed soon, anyway, so what difference does it make?

Besides, WP23, thats the most boring thread title I've ever heard!



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Besides, WP23, thats the most boring thread title I've ever heard!


Yes you do have a point there.

I agree with you, I’m not a big fan of sending the Natl. Guard into a war zone for long periods of time, to me its not their primary mission, and they are more vulnerable because their equipment is not up to par with active duty troops.

Also, I know about the War Powers Resolution but this president has not violated it, he has gotten an AUMF every time he has asked for one. And in some aspects the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does intrude upon president war powers. So I think congress withholding funding is unwarranted.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Its just wishful thinking anyway. We are way past the point of no return on this deal now. I just worry about the world my son is growing up in, and I feel powerless to protect him, the way my dad protected me, from all the bad guys out there, and around here. Its enough to keep me up nights posting to ATS.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Icarus Rising

I agree with you, war on terror is just pulling more funds and bigger budgets to defense that is nothing more than money to be passing through the hands of the Carlyle investment firm, Haliburton and subsidiaries thanks to Cheney and Bush connections.

Our nations defenses when it comes to disasters and domestic problems has been hack.

But still our soldiers are lacking much needed equipment in Iraq. Our local base was cut off from making Armor for vehicles.

Funny, you have not idea how big companies under the defense budget get to spend all that money.


Sickening.





top topics
 
0

log in

join