It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Military not ready for US attack

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


i admit, i couldn't read up on your OP 'raw story' link...all i got 4 times was a RED Page without any text....
Then on your 2 links in the follow up post, the top link displayed an ATS
.erbox saying that thread is no longer available...

which left me only the 2nd (or lower) link about the Guard units lack of on-hand equipment.............
The first thing that popped out to me was that the GAO, Government Accontability Office was the agency making the 'appraisal',
or at least presenting the equipment ledgers (and other reporters making
the negative appraisal from the data ?)


The GAO are/is not the Inspector General, nor the Pentagon, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all the branches of the U.S. military...



Those groups or senior officials would have a better measure of the readiness and deployment of these supposed missing or lacking equipment reported by the GAO.



spin of the facts & data is all this seems.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by St Udio]




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceUk
Just as long as someone can get on the inside of your country, they can win.


Well, if there was any potential of this, it clearly right now would have to mostly reside in the extremely sizable Mexican population that is already here- either legally or illegally- and some of the major demonstrations that have taken place, in some cases reaching as high as 300,000, right here in our own cities, that perpetuate that thought.

And the only reason I say that is because of the known plan by some of those factions to try and reclaim "Atzlan"- that portion of the US ceded via the Mexican-American war. Just search for Mecha, and you will see. I have often wondered how many of these people are really thinking that, and if there could be a secret plan brewing to one day make a very stupid move that will undoubtedly cost many of us our lives.

What is additionally troubling is the manner in which some of these groups display their obvious lack of respect for all things American- like saying "FU America with a raised middle finger, carrying a Mexican flag, and exclaiming for us to leave because it is their land." I mean Jesus, those are some serious fighting words right there to a patriot looking on in his or her own American city. But in sticking with our principles of freedom of speech, no one has really come to contest this on a major scale so far.

So to tie this potential scenario into the OP, is the US national guard prepared to deal with THIS kind of attack? Well, let's figure- estimates range between 12 million and 25 million illegals here already. So let's assume, just for the sake of argument, it's 18 million. If we said that hopefully only 1% of those were involved, that'd be 180,000. If we took some of those here legally that would be involved as well, we could probably add another 2,000. Add to that another 5,000 or so coming across the border armed, between drug dealers and Mexican military, that's 187,000, on a real good day. Note that if the percentages were much higher, we could be looking at near a million men. If this plan was secretly sanctioned by the Mexican military, and their plan was to move, knowing they would not likely be nuked on our own soil... Well you see how this very quickly could turn into a frightening scenario. Worse, what if covert elements of Chinese and/or Russian military were involved, or even other Latin American countries like Venezuela?


I'm daydreaming? Heh, go look up Mecha and then tell me that.

Look at the position that would put US armed forces in. Try to use planes to bomb them, right on our own soil? How would they be able to do that if attacks were occurring all over the place, in urban and rural areas, and the fighting was so localized that they couldn't bomb for fear of taking out American citizenry as well? That leaves the situation in a many- men-needed-with-boots-on-the-ground-with-small-arms scenario, for the most part. I don't believe the average American with a glock and maybe a rifle is going to be able to do much against the element of surprise, and organized bands of armed guerillas roaming the streets. If the local police are overwhelmed, then yeah, this is a potentially deadly scenario.

And with 1/3 of the National Guard overseas, and the other 2/3rds not prepared for even a serious hurricane, umm, yes, I would have to conclude that this administration is absolutely leaving the US homeland unprotected and open to an interior/exterior invasion/takeover. It is unacceptable, no matter how you slice it.

The bottom line is that our foreign policy is whack, bankrupting us, and undermines the way the constitution sets out to protect this country with national guard and state militia- which are largely tasked with defending the homeland.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Nope, all three links in OP work fine for me, just checked. Check your browser settings, and make sure you're logged in.

And as to the GAO, I will trust them any day over any other office, since they are impartial, with no internal interest in the military, and lay their facts on the line, with the chips falling where they may.

But ok, let's assume that all of it is BS St. Udio. Can you show show me why, in your estimation, that you feel the military IS ready for any attack on US soil?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

How would they be able to do that if attacks were occurring all over the place, in urban and rural areas, and the fighting was so localized that they couldn't bomb for fear of taking out American citizenry as well?


hasn't seen to have bothered America when bombing other peoples countries, when the stakes are as high as the security of the homeland do you not think these peoples death would suddenly become tragic but necessary for the 'greater good'.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarichar
hasn't seen to have bothered America when bombing other peoples countries, when the stakes are as high as the security of the homeland do you not think these peoples death would suddenly become tragic but necessary for the 'greater good'.


Well that's a damn good point, in theory, so gave you a star. BUT, when it comes right down to it, and I'm talking down to the American pilot of an F-16, yeah there could be cases- like in the supposed shootdown of flight 93- where they'd do it on order. I'd just have a hard time believing they'd canvas NYC for instance, with bombs, on orders from above. I do have enough faith in our military that they wouldn't do it. I think...



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


Nope, all three links in OP work fine for me, just checked. Check your browser settings, and make sure you're logged in.


the 'raw-story' finally loaded the page (evidently their server was busy)

but the old thread "Two-thirds of Army..." Still gets a
'ERROR: You've Requested a page that no longer exists"




And as to the GAO, I will trust them any day over any other office, since they are impartial, with no internal interest in the military, and lay their facts on the line, with the chips falling where they may.



that idea is supported by what?????????

If the GAO is so remarkably infallable.....
Why did Congress pay for the Independent Commission which is the crux
of your OP .line to begin with.?


I went to the PDF Report by the '[Independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserve' dtd 31 January 2008.
And I found it rather extensive;

Introduction = 6 parts (I-VI)
Section I = A-C
Section II =A-D
Section III = A-G
Section IV = A-F
Section V = A-F
Section VI = A-C
Appendix = 1-11
plus 39 Tables & Figures


Now somewhere in that tome, one will surly find something that shines a bad light on some aspect of military preparedness.


see: www.cngr.gov/
(see your Raw-Story link for address at end of the story)


but, you know Why?
Because the Report is supposed draw a picture of where the Guards & Reserves are now and how they will be Transformed.
that is the reason for any 'shortfalls', those parts of the US military are being, as the Reports Title states::: Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21st-Century Operational Force






But ok, let's assume that all of it is BS St. Udio. Can you show show me why, in your estimation, that you feel the military IS ready for any attack on US soil?



It's not BS, sir...

the take on the Report is 'Spin'....
(spin serving someone's purposes.)



The military is never ready for any suprise attack, let alone an act by a cadre of insurrectionists or a cell of militants or a spontaneous and sustained act like the DC sniper episode...
but the military guards/reserves are able to respond effectively, even if local police and FEMA are needed to bridge the gaps in providing a 100%
response to the emergency.
They, the Guard & Reserves, are not in a state of Shambles which seem to be Implied ,

thank you



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread is in RATS, and it's working. Maybe you haven't "payed the piper" so to speak recently?


Not sure how you can say the military is never ready for a surprise attack. I mean I'd hate to think the Persian Gulf fleet is in such a state.

We are talking specifically about the preparedness, quantity of qualified, trained personnel, and the current distribution of those personnel relative to the current threats we face here at home. If you want to take it as spin, hey by all means. But in rereading the OP, and the sources, I will let the evidence speak for itself. You've put down opinion, just like me, but I am backing mine up with links.

Maybe you could provide some of your own to counter the OP with opposing views that would help me, at least, be more at ease.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Remember this?
The last F-117 "Stealth Fighter" was retired last week.

Most of the F-15 fleet was recently grounded because of cracks in the airframe.

Congress limited the production of F-22's that are to replace both the F-117's and F-15's.

Remember, your Congressman supports the troops!

p.s. The Air Force is smaller now, than the Army Air Corps was in December 6, 1941.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by CharlesMartel]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The whole point is to rationalize foreign troops coming to our aid. Invaders coming to protect us from invaders.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
The whole point is to rationalize foreign troops coming to our aid. Invaders coming to protect us from invaders.


Yeah, maybe so. Except for one slight little problem- what is so rational about having foreign troops protect us when we have the troops we need to do the job (even though they are currently being misused imo)? Oh yes, I forgot- money, oil, and global domination. All rational in the minds of the NWO.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by tarichar
hasn't seen to have bothered America when bombing other peoples countries, when the stakes are as high as the security of the homeland do you not think these peoples death would suddenly become tragic but necessary for the 'greater good'.


Well that's a damn good point, in theory, so gave you a star. BUT, when it comes right down to it, and I'm talking down to the American pilot of an F-16, yeah there could be cases- like in the supposed shootdown of flight 93- where they'd do it on order. I'd just have a hard time believing they'd canvas NYC for instance, with bombs, on orders from above. I do have enough faith in our military that they wouldn't do it. I think...


If you havent seen Cloverfield I dont want to spoil it for anyone so ignore the next bit,
3
2
1
but google Cloverfield and "hammerdown"



hardly an imperial source but still food for thought.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOmaskedman
 


China does not have a 300+ million man Army. Why do you insist on repeating this ridiculous number? Perhaps they have 300 million military age males, but that's a significantly different statistic.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by forty six _ two
 


That's an excellent point with the California vs. total mass of the USA, with regards for occupation. Between the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Army/National Guard, and the armed citizenry, it would be an impossible task to physically invade/occupy the USA.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
MSNBC VIDEO REPORT- MUST SEE



"You couldn't move a girl scout troop with the kind of planning they're doing."



88% of National Guard not ready?

Much of their equipment stuck in Iraq and they can't secure funding to get it fixed?

Well, let all the military buffs here come out and defend as they may, but seriously, look at what these people are saying!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


It wouldn't just be the National Guard defending the Continental US. The USMC and Army have quite a few troops here at any given time, and a lot of firepower. Unless these illegals had heavy weapons, armor, air support, etc.. they wouldn't last long.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Unless these illegals had heavy weapons, armor, air support, etc.. they wouldn't last long.


Yeah but the issue is more directed at what happens if there is a major terrorist attack, and how the lack or preparation will only cost the country more lives.

Hmm, so I wonder if this is more of a conscious effort. Could they intentionally be doing this so that the loss of life is greater when the next attack hits? I mean that certainly fits in with NWO population reduction agenda.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But the most effective way to deal with terrorism, is to be vigilant and proactive in preventing the attack in the first place. It doesn't do much good to wait until you've been attacked to try to respond(especially if it was a suicide attack, so the culprits can't be dealt with). Just like with dealing with conventional threats, you want to fight your adversary on your terms, not theirs. That's why the intel and defensive posture need to be good at sensitive locations, as well as having good communication and response plans, to prevent the sort of confusion that happened on 9/11.
Sharing of info between various agencies(law enforcement, intel, etc...) and maintaining good databases so that time sensitive info can be compiled and sent to the necessary people for action. Of course if you can find cells, supporters, financers, suppliers, etc.. and break them up before they can act, that's far more desirable, than just having a good casualty response plan.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Really?

The best way to deal with terrorism is to encourage socio-economic growth in the regions it is most prominant so that people don't have to feel that is their only option to having their voices heard, that and stop trying to shove our ideals down their throats... generally speaking as the middle class grows, so does the push for political reform... democracies thrive where there is a strong and vibrant middle class and they become endangered when the middle class shrinks.

A lesson we should all pay close attention to.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
But the most effective way to deal with terrorism, is to be vigilant and proactive in preventing the attack in the first place.


Well maybe in your book. But then how would you answer to allegations that there wouldn't be any terrorism threat against the US to begin with, IF WE'D JUST GET OUT OF THEIR LAND?


Of course if you can find cells, supporters, financers, suppliers, etc.. and break them up before they can act, that's far more desirable, than just having a good casualty response plan.


Well that may be true, but the whole point of this article is to illustrate that a good casualty response plan is of not much use when you don't have the trained people in place to do it- and those that potentially could be are off lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.

Go Vermont, get the Guard back home.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well maybe in your book. But then how would you answer to allegations that there wouldn't be any terrorism threat against the US to begin with, IF WE'D JUST GET OUT OF THEIR LAND?


So, if we just left, AQ would stop all the terrorist attacks???

And if I remember correctly, AQ attacked us first on 11 Sep.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join