For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)


US Military May Not Be Ready for Attack
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Printable VersionEmail This Article del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
(23) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
(01-31) 08:25 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --


The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.


Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were
nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for
the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.


The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes
in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.


The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not
have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap
that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."


"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them
trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold
Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though
there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ...
There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in --
you're either ready or you're not."


In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern
command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military
team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.


"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical,
biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not
as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that
we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be
harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."


Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.


The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for
Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little
progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the
homeland.


"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said
the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the
much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in
place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any
international crisis.


He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must
move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of
the U.S. military.


The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department
must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force
that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation,
respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.


Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on
two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative"
other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement
the active duty forces both at home and abroad.


Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is
a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they
are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.


Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations,
Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The
commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a
cost analysis, he said.


In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said
that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct
active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That
recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the
military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.


"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.


Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will
reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders
on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops
-- to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands.
Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs
will be met.

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their
legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


Were those the 'legal owners' shooting at the soldiers who were there to
help?
--
John H


No, John. Is this the first you've heard of this?

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


Were those the 'legal owners' shooting at the soldiers who were there to
help?
--
John H

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)




The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H

On Jan 31, 2:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

You always have to put a qualifier in there to try and make the Bush
regime sound good, don't you? No one said anything about a "nuclear
attack from Russia, China........."
We aren't ready for a decent conventional attack neither, can you
guess why?
One word: Iraq.


The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

Iraq didn't have the weapons. We knew he didn't via UN reports. What
is worse, is he didn't have the delivery means and we knew it.

That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H

On Jan 31, 2:52*pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:38*pm, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

You always have to put a qualifier in there to try and make the Bush
regime sound good, don't you? No one said anything about a "nuclear
attack from Russia, China........."
We aren't ready for a decent conventional attack neither, can you
guess why?
One word: Iraq.

Or it could be left over from the last big attack the US military
suffered... The Clinton administration....




The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

Iraq didn't have the weapons. We knew he didn't via UN reports. What
is worse, is he didn't have the delivery means and we knew it.





That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry about.
--
John H

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:27:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:56:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their
legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


That would be the liberal wave, should they win the presidency.


We're talking about the past here. The police were ordered to collect
guns.
Is this the first you've heard of it???


I'm talking about billary and bobama being anti-gun. Is this the
first you've heard of that?


That's not the subject of this discussion. You're looking for the class
that's four doors down on the right side of the hall.


The discussion was over with my last post.

QED
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.