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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
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.


And how do you encourage socio-economic growth?- by encouraging democracies. Democratic nations tend not to war with one another, so the best way to make peace is to increase the number of democratic nations.
Economies are much more successful in democracies than under monarchies, theocracies, etc..




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

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.


Where our opinions differ is the root cause of terrorism. I don't believe that terrorism is a result of a foreign policy, and that Americans are just asking for it with regards to attacks. Terrorism is a result of ideology, and it's a competing ideology with Western democratic civilization. I don't hear the Bin Ladens, Zarqawis, etc.. calling for social reforms and economic growth, in their arguments against the West. They have very narrow and extreme interpretations of Islam, and hate Western values,
they hate Israel, they hate freedom, etc..
Appeasing extremists is not the way to combat terror. They are not regular folks who would otherwise be peaceloving. They're not interested in peace/coexistence. They are however interested in Islamic Primacy.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yeah but using that ideology, we'd just nuke mecca and be done with it.

Whatever happened to live and let live? I could see it if once we were out of there, and consolidated back home, and then they tried something. But as long as we occupy their land, we will be at war, plain and simple.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The original report cited in this thread is not how we are doing in regards to detecting and/or preventing an attack on US soil; but rather that the military is unprepared to effectively respond to a catastrophic attack of chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature.

This has much less to do with military operations and much more on how to prepare a coordinated response from State/Federal/DHS. The National Guard is but one facet of a response that if the lesson of Katrina is attended to, shows that we have a long way to go to being prepared to deal with such an event.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Here's a video you guys might want to see of General George W. Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Army.

www.brookings.edu...

In it he calls the Army "unbalanced", and clearly states that we cannot maintain current deployment levels, as well as many other things. We're losing key people (double than the year before) in high places. It is a pretty long speech, but interesting, if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Other reports say that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is driving away other quality recruits, and and that the military is so desperate for people that they are recruiting in foreign countries. Just have a look around that site, you'll find them.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Also, the report cited is a report from the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.

This study did not include an assessment of the military as a whole or of civilian response capability.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kerontehe
 


I have been trying to maintain that focus the whole thread, but in reality, it is the entire military, not just the guard. We are at a point where, according to Casey, it will take years for the military just to recover from this prolonged war.
See video I just posted above.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Here is a link to a similiar report from General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from about a year ago.

abcnews.go.com...



Aside from the question of if we should be doing what we are doing there, this serves to ask if we can maintain our operations regardless of intent or motivation.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yeah but using that ideology, we'd just nuke mecca and be done with it.

Whatever happened to live and let live? I could see it if once we were out of there, and consolidated back home, and then they tried something. But as long as we occupy their land, we will be at war, plain and simple.


Not all Muslims share that extreme ideological view, so nuking Mecca, etc.. would be completely uncalled for. Something like that WOULD unite every Muslim against the West. The problem is that when only one side is willing to live and let live, it doesn't work out so well.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Just a reply to put a link to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



These seem related and the responses somewhat at odds with each other.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I dont think we have to worry about any attack here, plus even if our military is gone so many of our civilians own handguns, we would have a million man militia over night.

being attacked is not really a threat to us



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kerontehe
 


Oh? How so? In fact, I'd say to the contrary. Noble Resolve is planning to do all this incredible planning with a minimum of actual troops. Mostly through computers. Now why would that be if they had the option to work out all this with actual trained personnel at every critical point in the operation? Maybe because they are running a little short?

This thread makes it's point regardless of the other thread. And vice versa. You are trying to create a tie here that has very little merit. And especially if you see both threads from a conspiratorial angle. So no, I don't buy what you are saying, sorry.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by kerontehe
 


Oh? How so? In fact, I'd say to the contrary. Noble Resolve is planning to do all this incredible planning with a minimum of actual troops. Mostly through computers. Now why would that be if they had the option to work out all this with actual trained personnel at every critical point in the operation? Maybe because they are running a little short?

This thread makes it's point regardless of the other thread. And vice versa. You are trying to create a tie here that has very little merit. And especially if you see both threads from a conspiratorial angle. So no, I don't buy what you are saying, sorry.



There's a lot of military training that involves the use of simulations. The reason being is that it's a command post excercise where the leaders are going through all the steps involved. It allows you to run multiple scenarios, cover a wide area with a lot of simulated resources, that you just couldn't do in real time, and with real troops. It gives you the most training for the least amount of training time, and expense.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yeah, that's true, but those same type of simulations may well have been used as a cover in a number of ways for 911 to occur. And we don't need to get into that here. You know the drill.

On that basis, as well as historical precedent, I feel I have every right to keep asking questions and pre plot the plot planners best I can. I find it very interesting how you and several others immediately jumped up all concerned when I showed them the real deal. Yeah, you should be. I am too. And hoping like hell I am dead wrong. Let the evidence speak for itself.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yeah, that's true, but those same type of simulations may well have been used as a cover in a number of ways for 911 to occur. And we don't need to get into that here. You know the drill.

On that basis, as well as historical precedent, I feel I have every right to keep asking questions and pre plot the plot planners best I can. I find it very interesting how you and several others immediately jumped up all concerned when I showed them the real deal. Yeah, you should be. I am too. And hoping like hell I am dead wrong. Let the evidence speak for itself.


There's always excercises going on though, so as soldier, I am not shocked to see that. If the excercise was rounding up 911 Truthers, and putting them into FEMA camps, then that would be something that might be out of the ordinary.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Weeellll, it seems the point of this thread is to elucidate that the military is not ready for an attack on US soil; the thread I linked discusses a military simulation to help plan for an attack or natural catastrophe on US soil.

Seems related to me. Or are we discussing a different agenda here.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join