COL Gene

National Guard Can Not Cope with Multiple Disasters

▼

National Guard Can Not Cope with Multiple Disasters

LTG Blum , Commander of the National Guard, Told Congress Today!

from JoeUser Forums



That National Guard is in trouble. They do not have the resources, especially equipment, to handle multiple disasters. Most Guard Units have only 30% of the equipment and much of what they have needs replacement! In fact most state guard units would have to draw on guard units from other states just to deal with a single disaster. Gen Blum said the situation in the Guard is more dangerous than al Qaeda.

In addition for the first time 52% of employers said they would not hire Guard Members who had the possibility of being called to active duty. That is a very troubling problem and points to the long term impact of the over use of the National Guard in Iraq.

Recently the Governor of Kansas said that the response of her guard forces was impaired to deal with the recent tornadoes and had to obtain personnel and equipment from other states. The condition of the National Guard is troubling and the funding that Bush has included in his budget request does not come close to addressing the requirements of the National Guard! Another failure of the Commander-in-Chief! Bush should have completed his Guard Service when he was a Guard Member. He must also have forgotten the importance of the National Guard even though he was the Governor of Texas!
politics
15,806 views 53 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
better than sending you

dictator col gene

I will stack up my military service against Bush ANY DAY. As for Draft Dogger Dick he hid out during Vietnam and now stands before the graduates at West Point. That just shows how DUMB this administration is about just about everything. As to a Dictator-- YOU mean the "Decider” GWB!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
those days in the supply tent have gone to your head have they

dictator col gene

no i mean dictator

you keep telling everyone how to think
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
You keep telling everyone how to think

I am not telling anyone how to think. I am pointing out the facts and posting the opinions of n the most well informed people in our country. You post BS that ignores what is taking place and claim the people with the experience and track record on the issues discussed do not know what they are talking about. The reality is it is YOU that does not what you are talking about on most subjects. As I have said when I sight facts or expert opinion and you attack me you are in fact attacking the facts or experts I am sighting. That makes you look like an idiot! This Blog is a good example-- Governors and Generals all say the National Guard is in trouble and you try and say the opposite!

It could be you are incapable of an intelligent thought!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
You keep telling everyone how to think


I am not telling anyone how to think.


It could be you are incapable of an intelligent thought!


SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DICTATOR

dictator col gene
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DICTATOR

dictator col gene

Spoken like a TRUE IDIOT danielost
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
when you stop telling people how to think

i will stop calling you dictator


dictator col gene
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have not told anyone how to think. I post facts and you make believe they do not exist!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
you keep telling me that if i don't think the way you do i am an idiot

and when i give you links that prove you wrong you call me an idiot

and then you tell me that when i don't think the way you do i am an idiot

now tell me dictator col. gene when don't you tell people how to think
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
and when i give you links that prove you wrong you call me an idiot.

I just posted that your LINK from the Brookings Institute you claim shows the deaths in Iraq are DOWN shows just the opposite! That is not telling you how to think it is showing you that you DO NOT THINK!
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just posted that your LINK from the Brookings Institute you claim shows the deaths in Iraq are DOWN shows just the opposite! That is not telling you how to think it is showing you that you DO NOT THINK!


you didn't post anything about the brookings institute you asked me what my point was

and yes two of their charts showed deaths were up but 5 of them showed that they were down

I post facts and you make believe they do not exist!


what facts all you have posted anywhere is propaganda
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

what facts all you have posted anywhere is propaganda I guess the 112 killed in May is also propaganda? You are so lame!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
what facts all you have posted anywhere is propaganda I guess the 112 killed in May is also propaganda? You are so lame!


Now col be honest, because I know the numbers. Out of that 112 KIA, how many were killed in just plain accidents? Plane or helicopter crashes, etc.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Out of that 112 KIA, how many were killed in just plain accidents? Plane or helicopter crashes, etc.

You can ask the same question about the killed in prior months. The totals are still up. Since most of the helicopter crashes are the result of enemy action why would you not count them as KIA. There are some accidents but that is not the real cause and that same issue would be true of the 104 killed last month! Face it-- This Surge is NOT reducing the fighting. It has shifted it to other areas but it is not moved Iraq closer to an end to the fighting. I hope you are preparing your excuses for September when the BIG REVIEW takes place! That is when all the GOP running for reelection in 2008 will have their backs to the wall! Bush does not care—His legacy is set and he can not run again nor would he ever be reelected if he could run.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
This Surge is NOT reducing the fighting. It has shifted it to other areas but it is not moved Iraq closer to an end to the fighting.


this is what the surge was supposed to do get the fighting out of bagdad

the surge isnt complete yet
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
gen. blum last year stated that border patrol and overseas commitments was only using 22% of the guard

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/17/cnna.blum/index.html


so assuming that the state of kansas has hit the high end of that number your telling me that the gov. of kansas couldnt put together a 20 man unit to go and look for survivers in a small town of 2000

this is the same gov. who is protecting a child killer

and THE SAME GOV. THAT IS TRYING TO BE PICKED FOR THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2008

now i wonder why she would follow the party line

oh that's right she is trying to be v.p. and since the party line is lie no matter what
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is what the surge was supposed to do get the fighting out of Bagdad

No it was to reduce the violence and restore control. Shifting the attacks is NOT A SOLUTION. In addition, the attacks continue in Baghdad. Yes we have completed the Surge-- All the added U.S. combat Brigades are in Iraq.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shifting the attacks is NOT A SOLUTION


your right shifting it isn't a solution

controlling where it happens is
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2007
Shifting the attacks is NOT A SOLUTION


your right shifting it isn't a solution

controlling where it happens is


ENDING the Violence is the SOLUTION. That is NOT taking place. We have not substantially reduced the violence in Baghdad. Thus, the Surge IS NOT achieving the objective. That is because the BASE reason for the Violence is NOT being resolved by the Surge. This is a struggle for a CONTROL of Iraq. Until all the factions agree to cooperate and STOP fighting and unite against the Foreign Terrorists, there is NO end to the fighting. There is NO indication that the factions within Iraq are ready to end their differences. So long as we remain in Iraq we are a focal point for that violence and the Iraqi Government has no reason to make the political changes needed to resolve the CONTROL issue. Bush and those that support him are still holding out for what they call "Victory" resulting from more troops. To end the fighting with military power would take many times the U.S. Troops in Iraq and then the violence would only last so long as sufficient military power PREVENTED the violence from reemerging. Saddam used military FORCE to prevent the sectarian fighting. As soon as that force was no longer in place the fighting started and the foreign terrorists began to set up operations! That is WHY the military told Bush that 500,000 troops were needed to prevent the very thing we see today. Now that the groups have armed and organized, regaining control is even more difficult then it would have been in 2003 when Saddam fell.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
ENDING the Violence is the SOLUTION. That is NOT taking place.


you have to control it before you can end it
and
you say you were a col. in the army

which army the salvation army
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
no i shouldn't say that

that would be a put down to the salvation army
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is NO indication that the factions within Iraq are ready to end their differences.


this fighting is about shiia getting revenge on the sunni becouse of saddam

it will end when they get tired of killing and since they get 74 virgins for dying in a holy war that may be a while.

the insurgents are fighting becouse they don't want a democricie in a muslim/arab country

becouse all of the leaders in that region have been telling their people that they are to stupid to know how to live. kinda sounds like al gore when he lost his election the old people of florida were to stupid to know who they were voting for.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
The insurgents are fighting because they don't want a democracy in a muslim/arab country

That is one reason why the Bush policy is not working. He insisted we help establish a western type democracy and it would spread and provide stability. WRONG!

The reasons you posted are WHY we need to get out and let any settlement be up to the Iraqi people not the U.S. Military!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
you say you were a col. in the army

which army the salvation army

That was Bush that was in the Salvation Army. I was in the Army that wanted to send enough troops to control Iraq. Bush sent less then 1/3 what the Army said was required. Bush has violated every bit of military doctrine and has shown he is not capable of being a Commander-in-Chief!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is one reason why the Bush policy is not working. He insisted we help establish a western type democracy and it would spread and provide stability


how can you say wrong it has only had 4 years

we needed from 1776 to 2007 and we still don't have quite right
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
how can you say wrong it has only had 4 years

we needed from 1776 to 2007 and we still don't have quite right

No one fought our revolution for us. The French did help but they did not fight our revolution. It is up to the Iraqi People to establish what they want for their country not George W. Bush. We have no business Nation Building. It is time to turn this fight over to Iraq.

Also getting back to the subject of this Blog-- the NATIONAL GUARD IS IN big trouble!!!!!