Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (171417)	9/28/2005 9:01:56 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Ed, again, I appreciate your comments. Some of your concerns are my own as well. BUT I would feel personally much better if there really was some discourse from the anti-war folks that spoke to either or both of the concerns laid out in both these articles. It does seem that so many of the people who are espousing such hate, only really hate Bush and Republicans in general, without a thought as to the Country and real concerns. Regarding Vietnam....I know you were there. The entire situation was a terrible thing for our country. Medals over the WH, killing at Kent State, our Military being spat on when coming home, riots in our cities, and murder of MLKing and Bobby Kennedy, and of course, JFK. I really do think that this War is entirely different than Vietnam. It is about changing the Middle East , at least one place to start, into a functioning democracy rather than leaving it to function as a terrorist haven and training ground as it was. If it doesn't work out, we at least tried. Maybe millions of people will live because so many of our Military men and women were so brave. I don't know if we will be alive when the results "are in", but I surely hope so. I've seen nothing from the anti-war folks that even pretends to visualize what will happen if we leave before the young democracy is mature enough to defend themselves. There are some serious questions raised in these articles, even though many of the left would rather degrade them than think seriously about answering the questions.... Message 21744429 Message 21743719

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (171417)	9/28/2005 9:32:47 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

Good post - I wanted to say that about Vietnam, but was too lazy to try to spell it out to Karen. Iraq is just the same, we, and they, will "win" when we leave and they determine their own future, even if we hate it. It's going to happen sooner or later - why not sooner? I'm one of those who would be the first to volunteer it we were invaded, even though I'm way too old now. Fighting wars overseas for vague, smelly reasons makes no sense to me.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (171417)	9/28/2005 10:51:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

National Guard General: Our resources are in Iraq ___________________________________________ Guard Hamstrung in Hurricane Relief Efforts -Associated Press WASHINGTON -- With most of its best equipment in Iraq, the National Guard has only about one-third of the helicopters, trucks, radios and other supplies it needs for homeland security, the Guard's top commander said Thursday. Gen. Steven Blum said Guard members had to convey messages in person, by helicopter and boat, so units could communicate with each other after Hurricane Katrina. The Guard's older radios do not work with the more sophisticated active duty equipment, he said. "I'm dealing with radios of the type that were used the last time you were wearing battle fatigues," Blum told the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense. "We have to be ready to do homeland defense. We can solve the problem. The urgency did not exist. It does now," said Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau. Blum said it will take as much as $7 billion to buy what the Army and Air National Guard need to respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other crises. In a detailed budget outline, Blum identified $1.3 billion in immediate requirements. His priorities, he said, include trucks, tractors, radios and satellite phones. Pressed for more details, Blum told lawmakers that initial assessments show it will cost more than $560 million to repair the National Guard facilities and equipment destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Committee members urged Blum to tell them exactly how much he needs now so that additions can be made to the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the military has the resources to fight the war in Iraq and respond to domestic disasters. He has pointed out that the National Guard had as many as 300,000 troops ready and able to deploy to the Gulf Coast if needed. Blum said the Guard made it a priority to send the best equipment to those units serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, he said, there is no noticeable difference between the active duty units and the Guard and Reserve units in those countries. "No soldier or airman is being sent overseas that is not superbly equipped to the maximum extent the nation can provide," said Blum. But, he said, that has left domestic Guard units with secondhand supplies. Also appearing before the committee, the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense said the military moved supplies and units into the Gulf Coast area four or five days before getting a formal request from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Paul McHale said that Defense Department officials, including Rumsfeld, often verbally approved orders days before the needed paperwork was received. In some cases, McHale said, Pentagon officials were asking FEMA to make certain requests. All together, he said, the Pentagon received 93 requests for assistance from FEMA, and all were approved. FEMA and other federal agencies have been criticized for responding too slowly to the massive flooding that swamped New Orleans.