From: "Mark" 

Fair enough Bob. My thoughts are the reduced availability of the National
Guard here at home is probably not anywhere near what it is twisted into
and/or the implied point of view of inability to respond (this was
addressed early on the thread) and even if it were, their deployment over
there is more valuable to the future of our country than if they weren't.
IMHO.


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:46464769{at}w3.nls.net...
> Or you could actually address the points raised and reply with actual
> information.
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:464639bc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> P.S. In a nutshell John, your philosphy is that we should never have gone
>> into Iraq, we should get out ASAP and we should work from a "law and
>> order" and defensive posture (a 9/10 mind-set in other words).
>>
>> I disagree, I will never agree, so we really shouldn't do these arguments
>> any more, cause I doubt you're moving either 
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:46463765$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Yes, I see that Dem footprint all over the whining:
>>>
>>> 1) Kansas Governor makes overstated claims about no help when we can see
>>> with our own eyes that the rescue is in progress.
>>> 2) Yesterday an AP article in my local paper with a few more governors
>>> (Dem) chiming in about how the United States is in deep trouble because
>>> of Bush
>>> 3) Some retired general (lots of them out there undermining their still
>>> active duty brethren aren't there?) claiming in a Saturday radio
>>> rebuttal (fancy footwork on that Howard!!! good for you bad for
>>> Petraous's mission, bad for the troops in general, and bad for the USA)
>>> that we need a new direction so we can have our troops back here to
>>> protect us. We have a new friggin direction and Petraous is carrying it
>>> out -- shut retired general, please, pretty friggin please.
>>>
>>> What a bunch of hooey -- I am not interested in cleaning up the brain
>>> matter more efficiently on our streets and in our malls after an attack,
>>> I'm interested in killing them where they are, instead of cutting,
>>> running and buying new ambulances as they follow us here (and already
>>> are).
>>>
>>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>> news:dtpb435svr6fk9gef18m21b6adv5fmf71m{at}4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:36:39 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The valid point is this Bob: because the Iraq war is currently
>>>>>unpopular in
>>>>>national polls, the governor chooses a disaster for her
citizens to get
>>>>>a
>>>>>cheap shot in at their expense
>>>>
>>>> No.  The real valid point is that the Iraqi quagmire has
depleted both
>>>> the regular Army and the ANG.  All 50 governors have been trying to
>>>> get someones attention for the past several years (and in
case you are
>>>> unaware, that number includes both Republicans and Democrats):
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070513govs-guard-story,
1,3999163.story?coll=chi-news-hed
>>>> Not long after that meeting, all 50 U.S. governors-the commanders in
>>>> chief of their states' National Guards-signed a letter to President
>>>> Bush imploring him to immediately begin reoutfitting their depleted
>>>> National Guards. But little changed, and the Guard now has only 56
>>>> percent of its required equipment, the lowest level in nearly six
>>>> years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> In late 2005, a GAO report found that almost every state's National
>>>> Guard had just a fraction of the equipment it was supposed to have.
>>>> Another GAO report issued just months ago took the
criticism further.
>>>> "The high use of the National Guard for federal
overseas missions has
>>>> reduced equipment available for its state-led domestic
missions," it
>>>> concluded. The top commander of the National Guard, Lt. Gen. Steven
>>>> Blum, testified to Congress last month that the continuous
use of its
>>>> forces for overseas missions has "resulted in a
decline of readiness
>>>> for units here at home."
>>>>
>>>> Missing equipment-much of which has been shipped to Iraq
or destroyed
>>>> there-is a large part of the problem. Certain states are worse off:
>>>> Arizona has just 34 percent of its allotted equipment; New
Jersey and
>>>> Idaho 42 percent; and Louisiana, ground zero for the worst natural
>>>> disaster in modern memory, remains at less than 50 percent.
>>>>
>>>> Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, wrote in March to the
>>>> House Armed Services Committee that her state's National Guard was
>>>> missing the kinds of vehicles it would need to dig out from a
>>>> late-spring northeaster or to evacuate residents in the wake of a
>>>> flood. The California National Guard, routinely called up
in the event
>>>> of earthquakes and any subsequent looting, is missing 700
Humvees, and
>>>> it has only half the high-water vehicles it should and less than a
>>>> third of its required stockpile of machine guns.
>>>>
>>>> In Illinois, the GAO estimates that the Guard has just 45 percent of
>>>> its authorized equipment on hand and that it is
particularly short of
>>>> trucks, earthmovers and other equipment critical to emergency
>>>> response.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5