Iraq war hampers U.S. tornado recovery

[Scott P]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070507/us_nm/tornado_kansas_dc

Whether pro or con Iraq War, it does bring up an interesting question. With resources stretched thin, will the USA be OK with coping with a large scale disaster. As devistating and sad as the tornadoes were (and my heart goes out to them), there is potential for much larger natural disasters in this country. We pray that they will never come, but they can. Will the USA have enough resources to cope with a large scale one with so much going into Iraq?

[KillEmAll]

I'm not sure why it would be up to our military to help us in a national disaster. You and I are both capable of helping out physically, financially, and in any other way that our country would need in a time of an extreme disaster. If our military is off fighting for our freedom we should be obligated to fill the gaps at home.

Nice try, but I'm not buying into it Scott.

[JP]

If our military is off fighting for our freedom we should be obligated to fill the gaps at home.

Nice try, but I'm not buying into it Scott.
Well stated :2thumbs:

[jumar]

If the crap hits the fan, I'm not planning on relying on the government (including the military) for assistance. This kind of sums up a fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals think (IMHO). The liberal mind set is to give more control to the government to take care of things for us (universal health care, etc). While the conservative mind set is more focused on taking care of yourself and/or having a local community to assist each other, and keeping the government from having too much control. The two different perspectives can be seen during times of crisis. I don't personally like to rely on others. My goal is to be completely self reliant, so as not to have to depend on the US Government. Everyone else can do what they want. But I think about what it'd be like if the Government controlled more everytime I have to stand in line at the DMV, or deal with some annoying red tape imposed by the government.

My 2 cents :blahblah: , feel free to disagree :2thumbs:

[Scott P]

You and I are both capable of helping out physically, financially, and in any other way that our country would need in a time of an extreme disaster.

If the crap hits the fan, I'm not planning on relying on the government (including the military) for assistance.

Notice I said if we had a "large scale disaster". Quote: is potential for much larger natural disasters in this country. We pray that they will never come, but they can. My statement is also in the form of a question, so I was interested in hearing what other's thought, but let me clarify large scale disaster.

Although rare, large scale disasters are still possible. Say a tsunami takes out san Fransico, LA, and San Diego (definately possible). Yellowstone Super Volcanoe takes out SLC and half the Rockies (possible, but less likely).

Sure the above would work, and we could all help out phyically, financially, et., but if a huge large scale disaster hit, it is going to require equipment. Sure we can all help out. Not many of us own things like helicopters, for example.

Things like tornadoes in Kansas are only a small speck compared to what could happen natural disaster wise.

Also, whether agreed upon or not, the National Guard specificially has one of the stated purposes as natural disasters. The National Guard is to be called under declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the state or territory in which they serve.

Unlike the resto of the military, until this year, the state Governors were the Commanders in Chief's of the National Guard rather than the president as with the other military branches.

As of 2007, the President of the United States will now be able to take control of a states National Guard units without the governors consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard. The reason for the change was so the National Guard can suppliment the troops in Iraq from Presiential order without input from the States or State Governors.

Right now, the Iraq war alone is expected to cost two trillion dollars. Resources are stretched thinner. No matter what your feelings on Iraq, certainly those two would be agreed upon.

The question is if a large scale disaster did hit, do you think having our resources elsewhere would have an effect?


While the conservative mind set is more focused on taking care of yourself and/or having a local community to assist each other, and keeping the government from having too much control.

In theory, this is correct, but since the Libs have been much for financially responsible in recent decades, it almost seems not to be the case so much anymore.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

[jumar]

In theory, this is correct, but since the Libs have been much for financially responsible in recent decades, it almost seems not to be the case so much anymore.
Yeah, unfortunately it is in theory. I'm speaking on a conceptual level of the difference between liberalism and conservatism, not the difference between republicans and democrats. There's very few politicians today on either side that I think are true to conservatism as I see it.

[jumar]

Oh and to give a more direct response to your question...

Will the USA have enough resources to cope with a large scale one with so much going into Iraq?


If you accept the premise that what we're doing in Iraq is necessary, then it doesn't seem to be a worthwhile discussion. Necessary is necessary. We'll deal with a natural disaster if it happens, as best we can, with what we have. If you don't think the war is necessary, then there's a whole lot of other things we could be doing with our resources. So doesn't this come down (again) to whether or not we agree with what we're doing in Iraq? Sounds to me like just another attempt to find reasons to support your opinion that we shouldn't be in Iraq.

[Scott P]

Yeah, unfortunately it is in theory. I'm speaking on a conceptual level of the difference between liberalism and conservatism, not the difference between republicans and democrats. There's very few politicians today on either side that I think are true to conservatism as I see it.

Yes, I agree. I would consider myself to mostly hold to fiscally conservative ideals except when a few thing like transportations systems come in to play, because it's not practical to priivatize or have the state run those as we function as a nation.

Other than transportation and such, currently the liberals seem to want to spend too much on social programs and the conservatives want to pour all our money into forcing democracy on whomever they see fit, regarless if the people in those countries want it or are willing to fight for it. Oh yes, plus privatize or destory our public lands, but I won't go there.

The liberals need to hold more people responsible for the position they are in and the conservatives should be more concerned about defending this country than they are forcing democracy on those who won't fight for it and just want to kill each other.

Still, it would be nice if some resources for National Guard and such would be available in this country just in case they really are needed other than spending all the tax payer dollars overseas.

[Rev. Coyote]

If our military is off fighting for our freedom we should be obligated to fill the gaps at home.

Iraq has nothing to do with your freedom or mine. Nice try, Bucky, but I ain't buying it.

[KillEmAll]

Iraq has nothing to do with your freedom or mine. Nice try, Bucky, but I ain't buying it.

I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. One I strongly disagree with.

"Bucky"?... c'mon, grow up.

[Rev. Coyote]

Iraq has nothing to do with your freedom or mine. Nice try, Bucky, but I ain't buying it.

I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. One I strongly disagree with.

I don't dabble in opinion, Sport. I make judgements. You just happen to be wrong.

Of course, if you like throwing away your tax money on half-baked social engineering projects in Iraq, who am I to argue?