Reply #28: A point...or two

[windbreeze]

"There are plenty of National Guard not in Iraq to handle anything that might arise in this nation short of an outside invasion"...isn't that exactly the point we are trying to make???? That it is the N.Guard's duty to respond, WITHIN THEIR OWN STATE, to any disaster, unless requested by the Governor of another state to help...BUT... NOLA's NG was in Iraq, along with the specialized equipment used for flood response...and they had to request NG units from Miss, GA. and other states...There are plenty of regular troops sitting on bases right here in the US now, that could replace ALL the NG serving in Iraq...so why aren't they there instead?

Don't confuse the issues here...NG response is ONE THING...FEDERALIZED response to ANY situation, UNDER BUSH'S ORDER, IS something else entirely..NOLA...WASN'T responded to, in any way, in a timely manner...so yes, there IS reason to complain, about it, and the complaints are justified...all the agencies that normally respond, have been systemically gutted financially, so their help is about useless, as NOLA showed us...and I certainly am against FEDERAL troops OR ARMED MERCENARIES responding to FORCE quarantine for a flu epidemic, in any state of this nation..Bring home all the NG units, and let them do the job, they were trained for...

Wake up and smell the coffee..Bush and the R's have full and total control of all arms of this gov't...Legislative, Executive, and Judicial...now you feel we should give Bush TOTAL CONTROL of the MILITARY, to USE against US, IF and WHEN he deems necessary????You do know what that's called, right??? A DICTATORSHIP!! and until he has ALL that control...he isn't going to be happy...

His intentions to put the NG under the auspices of the regular military got shot down in DC...so send them overseas...then the people will beg me to use regular military for what their NG was intended..
Seems there's a method to the madness...'eh?? (none are as blind, as those who won't see)
windbreeze