The U.S. military is not prepared to meet catastrophic threats at home, and it is suffering from an "appalling gap" in forces able to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear strikes on U.S. soil, according to a congressional commission report released yesterday.
The situation is rooted in severe readiness problems in National Guard and reserve forces, which would otherwise be well-suited to respond to domestic crises but lack sufficient personnel and training, as well as $48 billion in equipment because of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.
Even though it's true that we haven't had any at home catastrophes, I guess this means we'd rather fight to save Democracy in Iraq than protect our citizens at home. Bad call, Mr. President!
7 comments:
That reminded me of that English satire reading we did, "Flooding the Zone". It really does seem like we do too much in the name of "helping less fortunate countries", especially when you consider the problems our country seems to have itself.
On one hand, we need our forces in Iraq because at the moment it is so unstable. Taking our troops out of Iraq would definitely put many of its citizens in danger and make it easier for terrorist groups to regroup and take over. At the same time, we need to worry about OUR country, too. Even with the amount of troops we have in Iraq, they are still spread rather thin, so its a bit of a lose-lose situation. We don't have enough troops here to adequately protect America, and we still don't have enough troops there to help stabilize the country.
This is sort of backwards! We must look after our own country first! That is why the military was included in the constitution: to protect our nation at home. When our military are so busy overseas that we cannot find the resources to protect our own soil in case of an emergency. I think that is not a smart move on the part of Mr. Bush. Our country's priority must be to protect the land that wee all live in, then we can venture out on Bush's "moral crusade".
It could just be propaganda to get Americans to support increased funding for the military. You know, the world collectively spends $90 million every couple hours on arms & weapons, the exact same amount of money needed PER YEAR to maintain an international biodiversity wildlife protection system... that was from APES
i agree with kristina. i dont think that any amount of money or personell could prepare the country for a nuclear attack. like we learned in history last year, nuclear war would basically mean the end of civilization, and therefore 48 billion dollars would not really make much of a difference in the case of a nuclear attack on US soil.
Noelle are you voting for Ron Paul? Cause if you aren't horrible play lol. He is all about that kind of stuff, and to the rest of you in the class who might feel the same way, YES RON PAUL IS A REPUBLICAN! But if anyone watched his interview on MTV on Sat, I did, you would see that not all Republicans are mean like you guys think. Anyways I am not voting for him, or at least most likely not going to cause he does not have a chance, but sounds like maybe we can get another Republican in our school from the way you are talking!
:) haha Ron Paul 2008
He is a very energetic man, specially at the end of this if anyone wants to check it out.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Haha, good point Ryan! I do agree with Ron Paul's War in Iraq policy. However I'd have to say that I don't support some of his other.. ideas like building a 600 mile fence on the Mexico border.
Post a Comment