Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Terrorists or Tornado's: Which would you rather have your National Guard fighting?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:50 PM
Original message
Terrorists or Tornado's: Which would you rather have your National Guard fighting?
Edited on Mon May-07-07 01:07 PM by Philosoraptor
Personally, I'd rather have my National Guard protecting me on my own soil, helping to clean up and rebuild after a hurricane or tornado, not fighting so called terrorists on the other side of the planet.

Call me crazy but if a big ass hurricane hit the Gulf Coast again, or several, and 150 tornado's simultaneously swept across the plains, we'd be royally fucked. The National Guard is supposed to be there in force after any natural disaster, this is one of their main functions, but our 'leaders' need them elsewhere.

And as wildly contrived as this scenario sounds, it COULD happen, we could have some awful earthquakes on the west coast or around the New Madrid Fault near Memphis. There is flooding in Oklahoma right now, and tornado's obliterating towns in Kansas, and where is our National Guard? They're over there in the middle east making billionaire dick cheney into a trillionaire. This is OBSCENE to the max, but no one seems to care.

Tell your local politicians, bring our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our nieces and nephews, our aunts and our uncles, our mothers and our fathers home, our National Guardsmen, our Marines, Our Air Force, our Army, our Navy, god dammit all, enough is enough already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Both. And I think we could handle both if we were not mired
in this bogus war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. How exactly can the National Guard fight tornados?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Nukes?
...you know what I mean...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Are you being serious
It isn't the tornado that they fight but the devastation caused by it. They can help with transportation and logistics on getting safe drinking water and food and clothing and shelter for the people in need. Other local resources are usually overwhelmed by it all. Natural disasters take more life and property damage every year than any terrorist attack could even think of doing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Hell no I ain't serious. Don't ever take me literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. But if'n we leave Iraq, the tornados will follow us home!
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Terrornados of mass destruction.
We need a global war on tornados, makes as much sense as one on terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Terrorists actually
But I don't think they're doing either at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Cleaning up after natural disasters is part of their function.
And they are being missed, there were much needed during Katrina, and New Orleans could use them. They are being exploited for profit, and it dishonors their president and vice president.

And they damn sure aren't keeping us any safer from terrorists here, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. It was a silly question
Their first obligation is national defense. That means if there was seriously a question of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, for instance, or cleaning up after a tornado - they should be fighting the terrorists.

But they're doing neither in Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I heard Osama was still alive, & gaining momentum.
At least the president isnt' chasing girls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. I disagree re: national defense.
They are called citizen soldiers for a reason. They have two equal roles to play. Traditionally they have been used for disaster security in their home state. With regard to their national defense component -the intent was that they would be defend the home front if our military was elsewhere deployed.

Now they are being used by Bush in a manner that was never intended.

Do you think the states should have to pay for all of the equipment the guard units have lost in Iraq? Or do you think the federal government should pay for the use/destruction of same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I thought Citizen Soldier meant they were part-time soldiers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. The definition of OR
I have to guess you understand what OR means.

The question was terrorists OR tornadoes. That being the silly question, the answer is terrorists, if it were necessary for them to do that.

I specifically said they were NOT fighting terrorists because they were IN Iraq.

So what the hell is the point of your post - except to pick a fight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Terrorists
I was hoping we had FEMA or another organization to help in natural disasters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. And of course ALL the world's terrorists are in Iraq, er, Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I don't know where the terrorists are
I was just responding to your question. We train soldiers in the national guard to be a part of our military that is suppose to fight and win wars. Neither policing a civil war in Iraq nor picking up trash after a tornado is part of their job description.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Their name is their function.
Edited on Mon May-07-07 01:15 PM by Philosoraptor
I've read the charter, and natural disasters is one of their primary jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, saving lives, preventing lawlessness, etc., and I agree they are not to be involved in other nation's civil wars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. I just googled the national guard
and got the Army NG home page. It lists a Federal mission and a State mission.

Federal MIssion: Our Federal Mission

During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.

Even when not federalized, the Army National Guard has a federal obligation (or mission.) That mission is to maintain properly trained and equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed.

The Army National Guard is a partner with the Active Army and the Army Reserves in fulfilling the country's military needs.


The State Mission:

The Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership are the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.

The Army National Guard's state mission is perhaps the most visible and well known. Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state can rest assured that the Guard will be ready to respond, if needed.

If their function is in their name, the Federal mission must come first.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. Neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
18. Tornadoes, floods, national disasters
I think that all "military" throughout the world should be used in this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murloc Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
19. I don't think you can shoot a tornado :)
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC