US military not ready for attack

[LiberalNation]

Lucky the chance of us really being attacked is low but if we were, we would hafta pull the troops from iraq and end it to fight another war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guarding_america;_ylt=AvEnbd6ViWpdHx8RN4vNj0UDW7oF


WASHINGTON - The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in — you're either ready or you're not."


Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

[Mr. P]

Who would be stupid enough to attack a country with so many privately owned firearms and citizens and former military folks that know how to use them?

Don't you just LOVE the benefits of the second amendment?

[Classact]

What do you think the people presenting this information hope to gain?

Do you suppose it is a we must blame Bush for the homeland not being secure or we should blame war for the fact that the homeland isn't secure?

What is the reason for the post?

The facts are the military and the reserve military forces primary purpose is to fight war(s). We are using the military force exactly for their designed reason for existence. So why post the article?

The army NG and AR in a planned war with a European style large scale war would leave their equipment behind. In Europe there are equipment stockpiles of equipment for each and every AR, NG and stateside Active Component fighting force... thousands and tens of thousands of vehicles, tanks and so on just waiting for war. In the case of the wars in the ME it was necessary to deploy with equipment since we had no prepositioned equipment. My guess is that there will soon be a prepositioned equipment stockpile in the ME and Africa since we are opening an Africa Command that will do away with the necessity to deploy troops with their home equipment.

The replacements are in the pipeline as the article states. So, what is the purpose of the article?

[manu1959]

a massive military invasion of foreign forces would invade the US:

from where?

how would the get here?

ya right.......

[Classact]

a massive military invasion of foreign forces would invade the US:

from where?

how would the get here?

ya right.......Mexico by walking and military vehicle as they are doing now.

[Mr. P]

a massive military invasion of foreign forces would invade the US:

from where?

how would the get here?

ya right.......

Through Mex-ico? Sir.

[Monkeybone]

Dangit Class you beat me too it.

or it could be all of the ppl already here. they are just waiting for the signal! oh no's!!!:tinfoil:

[LiberalNation]

Who would be stupid enough to attack a country with so many privately owned firearms and citizens and former military folks that know how to use them?

An attack, as in a bomb detonated or planes flown into buildings does not require an invasion. We couldn't respond with a ground war in the country supporting it without open troops to send.

[Monkeybone]

An attack, as in a bomb detonated or planes flown into buildings does not require an invasion. We couldn't respond with a ground war in the country supporting it without open troops to send.

and how could we defend against that even if our troops were here? i say one of the things that has helped not being attacked here is us over there disrupting their training camps and everything. even though it does suck with us over there.

[LiberalNation]

having troops here would simply give us more options to retaliate to it. Like as said in the first post, lucky for us no ones gona be invading us anytime soon or this would be a problem.

[Monkeybone]

ah gotcha. but in the same breath let me say, it doesn't take very many troops to retaliate with missle or bomber strikes

[Mr. P]

An attack, as in a bomb detonated or planes flown into buildings does not require an invasion. We couldn't respond with a ground war in the country supporting it without open troops to send.

Yes we could and would, believe that.

[AFbombloader]

An attack, as in a bomb detonated or planes flown into buildings does not require an invasion. We couldn't respond with a ground war in the country supporting it without open troops to send.

Standard US policy is to soften up you intended target with air power. I do believe the Air Force and the Navy are supporting the errorts in the ME but not with the majority of their forces. And the majority of the troops being used from those are the Special Forces. We have the ability to strike back anywhere in the world and do it immediately. There are wings of aircraft just waiting to fly around the world and drop the most accurate munitions known to man.

AF:salute:

[manu1959]

and how could we defend against that even if our troops were here? i say one of the things that has helped not being attacked here is us over there disrupting their training camps and everything. even though it does suck with us over there.

our troops were here and there we three successfull attacks in a decade....

[manu1959]

having troops here would simply give us more options to retaliate to it. Like as said in the first post, lucky for us no ones gona be invading us anytime soon or this would be a problem.

as my rehtorical questions pointed out.....we have already been invade by 12 million imigration felons and we are losing the economic war they are waging against us....

anyone rember the economic war reagan waged against the soviet union and the results of that war?

[Monkeybone]

our troops were here and there we three successfull attacks in a decade....

that is what i am saying. if we couldn't stop it with our guys here then, how could we now? i mean i know that we are paying better attention to certain activities but still....

and were we going after terrorist training camps as hard as we are now though back then?

[manu1959]

that is what i am saying. if we couldn't stop it with our guys here then, how could we now? i mean i know that we are paying better attention to certain activities but still....

and were we going after terrorist training camps as hard as we are now though back then?

you can not stop a determined terrorist....just look at crime i would gues more US citizens and cops have died than the 4,000 military to date in iraq....

[Sitarro]

Standard US policy is to soften up you intended target with air power. I do believe the Air Force and the Navy are supporting the errorts in the ME but not with the majority of their forces. And the majority of the troops being used from those are the Special Forces. We have the ability to strike back anywhere in the world and do it immediately. There are wings of aircraft just waiting to fly around the world and drop the most accurate munitions known to man.

AF:salute:

Yea, The Air Force kicks ass!

[Mr. P]

Yea, The Air Force kicks ass!

You mean the ARMY AIR CORPS? Yep they kick ASS. The new Air Force are weenies! :poke:

[Gaffer]

First off. No country in the world could successfully invade the US. We can only be attacked through terror actions. And that can be reduced through intelligence, things such as wire tapping and interrogations. The very things our enemies want us to stop doing. Think about that.

Our military is currently taking on our enemies where they live. Preventing them from planning, training and equipping themselves. It keeps them off balance and we don't have to fight them here, allowing everyone here to go about their normal lives.

The only reason the illegals invasion has taken place is because it has been allowed too. Greed on the part of a few in power has made it possible. But it's not a military threat. we don't need to worry about invasion, just being sold out.

[retiredman]

First off. No country in the world could successfully invade the US. We can only be attacked through terror actions. And that can be reduced through intelligence, things such as wire tapping and interrogations. The very things our enemies want us to stop doing. Think about that.

Our military is currently taking on our enemies where they live. Preventing them from planning, training and equipping themselves. It keeps them off balance and we don't have to fight them here, allowing everyone here to go about their normal lives.

The only reason the illegals invasion has taken place is because it has been allowed too. Greed on the part of a few in power has made it possible. But it's not a military threat. we don't need to worry about invasion, just being sold out.

I wonder how may AQ operatives could get into America if they called themselves Pedro and came in from Mexico ostensibly to pick vegetables?

[glockmail]

having troops here would simply give us more options to retaliate to it. Like as said in the first post, lucky for us no ones gona be invading us anytime soon or this would be a problem. Retaliate by attacking what? The Democrat controlled Congress?

[theHawk]

Lucky the chance of us really being attacked is low but if we were, we would hafta pull the troops from iraq and end it to fight another war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guarding_america;_ylt=AvEnbd6ViWpdHx8RN4vNj0UDW7oF


Thank President Clinton. It was his wonderful insight to gut the miliary when he was in office. Thats the military Bush inherited and has had to use during the war.

[Gaffer]

I wonder how may AQ operatives could get into America if they called themselves Pedro and came in from Mexico ostensibly to pick vegetables?

They are already doing that. Not just AQ but hamas, hezbollah and iranians as well. Not as invaders but as terrorists.

[pegwinn]

An attack, as in a bomb detonated or planes flown into buildings does not require an invasion. We couldn't respond with a ground war in the country supporting it without open troops to send.

A well regulated militia being necessary....

While the General does have some chops, the article makes it sound like the local reserves and guard are second and third string players in a semi-pro league.

Taint so. Speaking only for the Marine Reserve, they have the gear, and the Reservists are held to nearly the same standard as the Active Duty folks. I know this from personal experience since I spent two tours on I&I duty training Reservists to the same standard. During those tours someone found out that I was reasonably good at what I do. So I got drafted to conduct MORDTS at other units.

Since my retirement, my daughters' reserve unit has been to Iraq twice as a unit and had several volunteers go on thier third tours.

I pity the fool that tries to invade Texas.

[Sitarro]

You mean the ARMY AIR CORPS? Yep they kick ASS. The new Air Force are weenies! :poke:

I'm no expert so I wouldn't know so how would a Black Hawk do against an F-22 in a dogfight?:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

A well regulated militia being necessary....

While the General does have some chops, the article makes it sound like the local reserves and guard are second and third string players in a semi-pro league.

Taint so. Speaking only for the Marine Reserve, they have the gear, and the Reservists are held to nearly the same standard as the Active Duty folks. I know this from personal experience since I spent two tours on I&I duty training Reservists to the same standard. During those tours someone found out that I was reasonably good at what I do. So I got drafted to conduct MORDTS at other units.

Since my retirement, my daughters' reserve unit has been to Iraq twice as a unit and had several volunteers go on thier third tours.

I pity the fool that tries to invade Texas.

Feels to me like they already invaded. Do we win if we convert them all to Americans ??? :laugh2:

[Sitarro]

Thank President Clinton. It was his wonderful insight to gut the miliary when he was in office. Thats the military Bush inherited and has had to use during the war.

Billy Bob seriously hurt San Antonio and many other cities with the multiple base closings. What antimilitary people don't get is the value the research that goes into military hardware translates and contributes to civilian use. The military is also a huge employer that almost anyone can get a job with and come out a better person than when they went in. Ad the amazing contributions to medicine and anyone should understand what an asset the military is without even considering that they defend this country and it's interests without question and with incredible precision.:salute:

[glockmail]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the real issue here, which is that the USA is not fully prepared to fight a war against WMDs. And frankly I’m not sure anyone knows how to do that except to avoid it by keeping the heat on those who would use those type of weapons, which is exactly what we have done in Iraq and are preparing to do in Iran.

[Kathianne]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the real issue here, which is that the USA is not fully prepared to fight a war against WMDs. And frankly I’m not sure anyone knows how to do that except to avoid it by keeping the heat on those who would use those type of weapons, which is exactly what we have done in Iraq and are preparing to do in Iran.

That was an excellent point! :clap:

[Classact]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the real issue here, which is that the USA is not fully prepared to fight a war against WMDs. And frankly I’m not sure anyone knows how to do that except to avoid it by keeping the heat on those who would use those type of weapons, which is exactly what we have done in Iraq and are preparing to do in Iran.I agree completely and see absolutely no benefit in bringing all the troops back to the states so terrorists have free reign and bragging rights that they chased off the infidels.

The report is misleading when speaking of readiness. There are different levels of readiness consisting of troop strength, training, equipment readiness and so on... If you have a unit that is at 100% strength and its vehicles are 100% combat ready but 30% of the soldiers are in Active Duty training or leadership training then the unit is not combat ready. Well that doesn't mean they can't kick ass, it means to be at top level they must meet all bars at one time.

[LiberalNation]

War demands strain US military readiness

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_risk_assessment

WASHINGTON - A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.

Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level — pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.

The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.

On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.

"The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant."

He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said.

Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.

On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said.(how many times have we heard that one)

[manu1959]

what other country would you like to attack?

[Pale Rider]

You can argue from now 'til eternity, but the fact of the matter is our troops are stretched dangerously thin, and that is the crux of the article LN posted. We "WOULD" have to pull troops out of Iraq if we "were" attacked within our borders. We do NOT have sufficient fighting ready troops within our borders. It's a fact. We're stretched thin. Our military is too small, and our troops are getting tired of having their enlistments involuntarily extended only to be ordered back to Iraq for a fourth or fifth combat tour. Our equipment is in disrepair, and the war in Iraq is approaching a trillion dollars. In order for us to maintain a combat ready force IN America, and have a sustainable force OUTSIDE of America, I've said all along, we'd need to DOUBLE the size of our military, AT LEAST, and that includes spending.

If this country is going to go around the world playing bad ass attacking, invading, occupying and nation building, we better get ready to restart the draft and double the military budget. There is no other way. At the present, we ARE stretched DANGEROUSLY thin. That is a fact. Debate whether or not there's going to be an attack within our borders all you want, it's not going to change the fact that we're stretched too thin. I'd like to fucking kick bush right square between his ass cheeks personally and explain that too him... fuckin' sickening bastard.

[manu1959]

You can argue from now 'til eternity, but the fact of the matter is our troops are stretched dangerously thin, and that is the crux of the article LN posted. We "WOULD" have to pull troops out of Iraq if we "were" attacked within our borders. We do NOT have sufficient fighting ready troops within our borders. It's a fact. We're stretched thin. Our military is too small, and our troops are getting tired of having their enlistments involuntarily extended only to be ordered back to Iraq for a fourth or fifth combat tour. Our equipment is in disrepair, and the war in Iraq is approaching a trillion dollars. In order for us to maintain a combat ready force IN America, and have a sustainable force OUTSIDE of America, I've said all along, we'd need to DOUBLE the size of our military, AT LEAST, and that includes spending.

If this country is going to go around the world playing bad ass attacking, invading, occupying and nation building, we better get ready to restart the draft and double the military budget. There is no other way. At the present, we ARE stretched DANGEROUSLY thin. That is a fact. Debate whether or not there's going to be an attack within our borders all you want, it's not going to change the fact that we're stretched too thin. I'd like to fucking kick bush right square between his ass cheeks personally and explain that too him... fuckin' sickening bastard.

who is going to attack us with our borders?

[pegwinn]

LN's article is a bit disingenuous. The pentagon ratings are using the politically directed definitions of readiness, and offer an explanation that is politically acceptable.

The fact is that "ready" is subjective. I used to conduct inspections of Marine units both Active and Reserve. Most that had issues with inspections were actually ready to physically fight.

Gunnery Sergeant Murphys first law states that "inspection ready units are often not combat ready, and vice versa." I found that to be true.

Additionally, readiness is a measured response. Are we ready to lay siege to Moscow? I doubt it. Can we respond with directed violence at the origin of a terrorist attack? Yup. All it takes is political balls.

There are problems with the US Military. Always have been and always will be. Today, like yesterday, we also have our fair share of defeatists and retreatists. Always have, and always will.

[rppearso]

It is not likely that a developed nation will attack us, however, we are not equip to handle any kind of major natural disaster due to the fact that most national gaurd units equipment are tapped out and alot of the personel themselves are deployed (supposedly they are not having problems with recruitment and retention from what I found online, but I suspect there are not so good underlying reasons why there numbers "look" good, including criminal waivers granted and lower ASVAB scores being accepted etc etc). Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs. And I remember you said the disolving the national guard is a bad idea with unessicary explitives but you never backed that up.

[pegwinn]

It is not likely that a developed nation will attack us, however, we are not equip to handle any kind of major natural disaster due to the fact that most national gaurd units equipment are tapped out and alot of the personel themselves are deployed (supposedly they are not having problems with recruitment and retention from what I found online, but I suspect there are not so good underlying reasons why there numbers "look" good, including criminal waivers granted and lower ASVAB scores being accepted etc etc). Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs. And I remember you said the disolving the national guard is a bad idea with unessicary explitives but you never backed that up.

Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

[Psychoblues]

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this board.




Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

How about the fact that CA NG troops are now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and in several other nonmentionable regions in this small world? The NG is and will always be as it's moniker suggests, National Guard.

[pegwinn]

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this board.

Originally Posted by pegwinn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=198601#post198601)
Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

How about the fact that CA NG troops are now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and in several other nonmentionable regions in this small world? The NG is and will always be as it's moniker suggests, National Guard.

Please tell me you are not really this stupid. I don't mind debating someone who is wrong when they are able to at least defend it. But to whip up on you because you cannot simply read the posts in order is unkind. As yet another public service I will help you out.

Please note that I was replying to this excerpt from grasshoppers post. Emphasis added for the reading challenged and mistakes left in for authenticity.


Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs.

Did you get it that time or should I type a little slower?

[Pale Rider]

who is going to attack us with our borders?

Other than the largest land invasion in the history of the world from one nation into another now underway from mexico into America, one could speculate who would attack us all day long, but I think just as legitimate of a question is, why would we let ourselves get into this condition?

[manu1959]

Other than the largest land invasion in the history of the world from one nation into another now underway from mexico into America, one could speculate who would attack us all day long, but I think just as legitimate of a question is, why would we let ourselves get into this condition?

you mean a condition where no major land force could invade us so we don't need the forces to defend us from a nonexistent threat.....like that condition....

[actsnoblemartin]

and left wing liberals like the berkely city council, the toledo mayor and others in the u.s. are actively working against the u.s. military

any comment?


Lucky the chance of us really being attacked is low but if we were, we would hafta pull the troops from iraq and end it to fight another war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guarding_america;_ylt=AvEnbd6ViWpdHx8RN4vNj0UDW7oF

[rppearso]

Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

Why do states get federal money for roads, social programs, librarys etc, that argument holds no weight, The federal mission of the national guard makes them unable to compleatly deal with a natural disaster, the national guard should be disolved and purely state ran national guard should be set up.

[Pale Rider]

you mean a condition where no major land force could invade us so we don't need the forces to defend us from a nonexistent threat.....like that condition....

You presume that "never" there will be an attack on us here. Is that a sound position? Have you ever played "Risk?"

If your yard was fenced, would you feel secure having locked your fence gate locked but not your house doors? You would leave your house wide open because... hey... nobody is EVER going to come in here. Do you really believe that pard? I can't. It's not sound thinking. It's not safe. Expect the unexpected, and plan for the worst. Make plans for "every" scenario.

You can leave your house unprotected because you don't think anybody would ever come knocking... me... I want to be ready.

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=198601#post198601)
Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?
Why do states get federal money for roads, social programs, librarys etc, that argument holds no weight, Whoa Grasshopper. Every federal dollar comes with a string attached. Enough of those strings create a noose. The feds use money to bribe the states to do it the feds way. CIP: Road $$ are tied to the state drinking age and speed limits. Before you spout off, be sure you are conversant. The federal mission of the national guard makes them unable to compleatly deal with a natural disaster, the national guard should be disolved and purely state ran national guard should be set up. The Federal Mission is why the fed supports 50% of the NG at all times and 100% when federalized. If you want a purely state run agency you will have to pay for it out of state funds.

Nice try. BLNT.

[rppearso]

Nice try. BLNT.

So what is the noose for librarys, social programs, capital projects (like bridges etc, maybe thoes things are paid for by the states. Maybe the states should poney up the other 50% and take all control away from the feds and the feds can fight there own wars and the states could institute there own training programs then the national guard would truely be a milita again. I dont know why this has never been done by any state governor, are they all just to greedy to give up the 50%.

[pegwinn]

So what is the noose for librarys, social programs, capital projects (like bridges etc, maybe thoes things are paid for by the states. Maybe the states should poney up the other 50% and take all control away from the feds and the feds can fight there own wars and the states could institute there own training programs then the national guard would truely be a milita again. I dont know why this has never been done by any state governor, are they all just to greedy to give up the 50%.

Let em pony it up. Each state is supposed to be soviering. But, like kids, they want money. As to the libraries, social programs, etc...... You brought it up, you need to look it up and learn it for yourself.

Honestly RP, you may be well educated, but you do not appear to be well informed on how your own nation is supposed to be governed. You need to bone up on history, politics, and the side-by-side march of each.

Here is an online preview of a book (http://books.google.com/books?id=gWdhMsXtedQC)you might look into.

[rppearso]

Let em pony it up. Each state is supposed to be soviering. But, like kids, they want money. As to the libraries, social programs, etc...... You brought it up, you need to look it up and learn it for yourself.

Honestly RP, you may be well educated, but you do not appear to be well informed on how your own nation is supposed to be governed. You need to bone up on history, politics, and the side-by-side march of each.

Here is an online preview of a book (http://books.google.com/books?id=gWdhMsXtedQC)you might look into.

I would wager to guess that states lost there sovernty with the creation of the IRS, the states can no longer impose enough meaningful taxation without huge economic ression (ie people no longer have any money to buy anything becasue they are being extorted by the IRS and trying to support there state in a meaningfull manner.