W offers Military as new FEMA….any problems?

  • http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050926-122858-7624r.htm

    My first problem is the same one Willaim Clinton ran into as president. When he put US troops into the fractured Yugoslavia and Kosovo they were trained in peacekeeping. After they returned home they had to be retrained as soldiers.

    Next, where are the liberals and Democrats who have been anti military since the Vietnam Patsy Action? Allow the military to control civilian situations? Bush is Hitler! The Fourth Reich has arisen.

  • Is it just me or is that unconstitutional?

  • @Yanny:

    Is it just me or is that unconstitutional?

    And on top of being unconstitutional (but who’s looking anyway?), isn’t it just a tad dumb?

    Bush’s proposal is to have the military act as lead agency in “extreme” cases. Anyone care to define extreme? Take Katrina for example. Was it extreme BEFORE the levees broke or after (and if it after, aren’t you turning the whole shebang over to an agency whose works had caused the failure to begin with, i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers)??

    The military does its job well for two reasons:

    1. It has a relatively clear mandate to protect us from foreign enemies.
    2. It has more money than it knows what to do with.

    Why break something that at least seems to be working by saddling it with a very fuzzy mandate?


  • Same reason the Legions built the roads. The military is organized, they know what to do and how to do it.

  • And the Legions also tossed out the Republic.

  • I think that the system should stay the way it is. The states should ask for assistance. If they don’t it’s their fault, not the federal government. We do not need to have more bureacracy. Personally, I believe it was the Louisiana’s fault the situation wasn’t handled properly along with FEMA. It would be a violation of states’ rights to use Bush’s plan imo.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys