View Full Version : Obama Calls for "Civilian National Security Force"
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
I think this is big enough news to have its own discussion. What does this mean? He made it clear he wants it to have parity with the current US Military.
There are plenty of foreign examples in the 20th Century where nations had parallel defense establishments. One was usually politically oriented while the other was specifically for national defense.
Blue_0
11-01-2008, 08:08 PM
Its an odd term. By definition "security force" condradicts civilian.
If this starts though, it might be a good idea to get involved with it.
Personally, I would rather have an expansion of the national guard or something along those lines. Is he thinking of some sort of massive militia?
California Joe
11-01-2008, 08:08 PM
That sounds like something Ernst Roehm would say.
El Diablo Rojo
11-01-2008, 08:09 PM
Excuse me while I go prepare a tinfoil hat. Maybe later I'll start stringing up some concertina across the lawn...
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:09 PM
Why would it be a good idea to get involved? I have never heard anyone call for this before. What is its purpose? All I can see is that it will balance out the current US Military, which I believe Obama does not trust.
Anthony91
11-01-2008, 08:11 PM
I assume that these civilian forces would replace the State Defense Forces that are already established? Since he said "just as powerful", I suppose that this new "CNSF" will include armored and air units in addition to an infantry force.
And didn't President Bush propose this a couple years back?
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:14 PM
I hate to use this analogy but it rings true. Many regimes in certain parts of the world that fear coups often set up politically loyal forces to counter out the military. There is not need for it in a state security sense due to its parallel nature. However it provides regime security.
For instance the USSR had multiple everything. The Military had the Army, its own intelligence apparatus etc. Then the Interior ministry had its own troops intelligence etc. Two airforces with the PVO and VVS. Germany has the SS and Heer. The PRC has the PLA and the PAP etc. etc.
These contradictory organizations did not exists in the West. That was one of the key differences during the Cold War.
Alfacentori
11-01-2008, 08:15 PM
Doesn't the US already have state National Guards/Reserves? Or are they classed as part of the regular forces?
Alfa
Anthony91
11-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Doesn't the US already have state National Guards/Reserves? Or are they classed as part of the regular forces?
Alfa
We've got the National Guard that is still a subordinate command under the Department of Defense, though is commanded by the Governor's of each state, that can be under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in certain circumstances.
And the Reserves are just the opposite, being only commanded by the President, under each service branch.
This seems to be akin to our "State Defense Forces" that numerous states have established.
In advanced, sorry for any incorrect information about this subject.
The Securitate, the Praetorian Guard and Stasi come to mind.
Special police are usually associated with certain styles of government that
have in the past had a negative reputation.What is wrong with the civilian police forces that are currently in place now? In the last decade all around the US we have seen SWAT teams and other special police groups become a bit more militaristic and better equipped.Is Obama anticipating ongoing civil unrest or something else the public is unaware of that would require a new police force?
El Diablo Rojo
11-01-2008, 08:19 PM
This seems to be akin to our "State Defense Forces" that numerous states have established.
Only run by the President instead of the individual states.
Anthony91
11-01-2008, 08:19 PM
Only run by the President instead of the individual states.
Indeed so.
El Diablo Rojo
11-01-2008, 08:20 PM
In the last decade all around the US we have seen SWAT teams and other special police groups become a bit more militaristic and better equipped.Is Obama anticipating ongoing civil unrest or something else the public is unaware of that would require a new police force?
SWAT teams have been around for 40 years. I would definitely want them to be equipped well for those contingencies like Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SLA and other crazies.
The Dane
11-01-2008, 08:21 PM
Local militias for times of emergency..?
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:23 PM
SWAT teams have been around for 40 years. I would definitely want them to be equipped well for those contingencies like Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SLA and other crazies.
Yeah, but people have noticed that post 9/11 smaller towns have raised units and bought them a lot of new toys in recent years. It however does not seem like a coherent national strategy, just an excuse for local governments/Law Enforcement to get bigger budgets and the toys they want. It is a ground up development versus a top down one.
Anthony91
11-01-2008, 08:23 PM
Local militias for times of emergency..?
Doesn't seem that way, Obama stated that they would be "just as powerful". So i'd imagine that it's either a full-time or reserve-esque force.
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:25 PM
maybe this is what he means LOL. The Obama youth fraternity regiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpeN7LVdyms
The Dane
11-01-2008, 08:34 PM
..or this
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
I can't think of a name
11-01-2008, 08:38 PM
Since when has the Peace Corps been about security? Why did he just not say "We need to fund and expand the Peace Corps"
Eztyga
11-01-2008, 08:39 PM
Something like this then? p-)
Ezy
Anthony91
11-01-2008, 08:40 PM
Ahh, that's good rofl.
The Dane
11-01-2008, 08:44 PM
Since when has the Peace Corps been about security?
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
It's a good article... :)
lol maybe he wants to become emperor obama the first , protected by his pretorians :p
seraosha
11-01-2008, 09:16 PM
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
Good read.
maybe this is what he means LOL. The Obama youth fraternity regiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpeN7LVdyms
That is ridiculous.Without Obama these guys would not have been able to
have a career? :roll: I have to say no man can live up to the hype that has
been generated around Obama and people who desire change are going to be disappointed.
Eztyga
11-01-2008, 09:31 PM
That is ridiculous.Without Obama these guys would not have been able to
have a career? :roll: I have to say no man can live up to the hype that has
been generated around Obama and people who desire change are going to be disappointed.
Bit like Kevin Rudd winning the election in Australia. Everyone wanted change and he showed a lot of promise as a new leader. Well, we were wrong, he is another dipstick poli.
Ezy
demotivater
11-01-2008, 09:34 PM
Pray this fool goes down in flames Tuesday.
dont you guys have 3th party candidates to?
Pffft... we have The Boy Scouts!
Charlie Daniels done told me so.
demotivater
11-01-2008, 09:50 PM
dont you guys have 3th party candidates to?
Not one with enough money to compete.
MichaelF
11-01-2008, 09:54 PM
I could see (and agree with) a reservist-manned (Home Guard, in the Scandinavian sense) Civil Defense Corps.
Not combat units, but paramilitary disaster/rescue units. Everything from Search/Rescue (perhaps absorb the Civil Air Patrol function and enlarge upon it) to firefighting, reestablishin power* & water** and setting up casualty points and field hospitals.
Give them the same type of LEO authority that Guard units have (stop/detain/collect), in the event of civil order breakdown.
Basically a Civil Affairs/Engineering/Medical/MP force. The German Technisches Hilfswerk is a good model.
An "auxiliary police force" or "Presidential Army" is not required.
*/**- these need to be considered priorities, as modern urban areas cannot support life (in the quantities needed) without them. LA losing power (and thus, water) for 96 hrs would cause heat & dehydration casualties in the (tens of) thousands.
FlintHillBilly
11-01-2008, 10:04 PM
I read a comment somewhere that someone said it was the Gestapo lol. I really dont know what he means by this term, just like i dont know what he means by all his other quoted terms. Must be one of those things we all have to figure out the hard way one of these days.
Rynnäkkökivääri
11-01-2008, 10:06 PM
It's called the 2nd Amendment.
MichaelF
11-01-2008, 10:12 PM
It's called the 2nd Amendment.
Not really. Two differing kinds of Security.
The presence of armed civilians, without organization, does not materially contribute to the security of the Nation as a whole, where the "enemy" might be anything from forest fires to terror campaigns to hurricanes.
The 2nd Amendment is invaluable (and has been inappropriately infringed, IMO), but a non sequitur in this topic.
Marshall_Nord
11-01-2008, 10:14 PM
dont you guys have 3th party candidates to?
Yes, but most plebian Americans don't want to "waste" their vote. Instead, they follow the two major parties and rally like Pavlov dogs: "Republicans goood, Democrats baaad; Democrats goood, Republicans baaad."
FlintHillBilly
11-01-2008, 10:14 PM
It's called the 2nd Amendment.
Said quite well. Although, i dont think Obama knows or believes in the Second Amendment. When he talks about this security force... the first thing that came to mind is "He doesnt trust the average american". Plus i think its also funny that if you look on his website there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING ON The Second Amendment.
MichaelF
11-01-2008, 10:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk
This is more along the lines of what we need.
WarDancer
11-01-2008, 10:34 PM
I think the NAZIS did this during their formative years. I believe they were called "brown shirts" back then. Then they were replaced by the SS storm troopers. I can see the only reason for this "civilan military corps" is to track down and punish non-believers. And no, I am not kidding. Fascism is coming America, wake up before its too late. The similarities between pre-Nazi Germany and current America are startling!!
Geez, a bit harsh... ^^^
However, for you Americans, is this an issue debated in your media or is it considered of little concern?
FlintHillBilly
11-01-2008, 10:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk
This is more along the lines of what we need.
Isnt that what FEMA tries to do basically? Minus volunteering.
I hate to use this analogy but it rings true. Many regimes in certain parts of the world that fear coups often set up politically loyal forces to counter out the military. There is not need for it in a state security sense due to its parallel nature. However it provides regime security.
For instance the USSR had multiple everything. The Military had the Army, its own intelligence apparatus etc. Then the Interior ministry had its own troops intelligence etc. Two airforces with the PVO and VVS. Germany has the SS and Heer. The PRC has the PLA and the PAP etc. etc.
These contradictory organizations did not exists in the West. That was one of the key differences during the Cold War.
Ummm. PVO and VVS have nothing to do with political affiliation.
helomech
11-01-2008, 10:48 PM
Hmmm,Civilian National Security Force......
The Gestapo or the NKVD/KGB-your choice
MichaelF
11-01-2008, 10:51 PM
Isnt that what FEMA tries to do basically? Minus volunteering.
Not at that scale, organization or professionalism.
FEMA.....well.....that's a topic in itself. It's a bureaucracy, not an actual technical organization. It has zero actual units to deploy, and tries to put them together, ad hoc, from 200 different organizations, in each situation. Recipe for failure.
FEMA is the result of the Federal Government trying to do Civil Defense on the cheap. After we wrote off trying to protect the civilian population, in the event of a nuclear conflict, FEMA was organized to preserve the Continuity of Government. Now, in our Dyas of Peace, it's been given the task of coordinating shambolic recovery efforts. Badly.
Like expecting your cable guy to fix your airplane.
But that's another thread.
Indiana Jones
11-01-2008, 10:52 PM
That sounds like something Ernst Roehm would say.
Yeah. The similarities are startling. There is one subtle difference though. Röhm was not a homo******.
;)
Rynnäkkökivääri
11-01-2008, 10:59 PM
Not really. Two differing kinds of Security.
The presence of armed civilians, without organization, does not materially contribute to the security of the Nation as a whole, where the "enemy" might be anything from forest fires to terror campaigns to hurricanes.
The 2nd Amendment is invaluable (and has been inappropriately infringed, IMO), but a non sequitur in this topic.
Didn't he say they were like the army? I don't think he wants them to be fighting fires. I could be wrong, but if it's a localized militia he wants supporting the 2nd Amendment and giving tactical shooting classes to everybody to be involved would be a much better idea than forming some force.
Midav
11-01-2008, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I'm ignorant on the subject, but has it been stated why Obama wants to do this?
MichaelF
11-01-2008, 11:26 PM
Didn't he say they were like the army? I don't think he wants them to be fighting fires.
Then he is mistaken. We have no need for a duplicate army, even less one that is set up as a political entity.
I could be wrong, but if it's a localized militia he wants supporting the 2nd Amendment and giving tactical shooting classes to everybody to be involved would be a much better idea than forming some force.
Civilians with guns, skilled or otherwise, does not a militia make. Organization (even more than individual skillsets) and authority (no private militias) makes or breaks the concept. That's why cops do not like armed civilians on the streets during a disaster. It's too hard to sort out who (friendly) is who (hostile).
Andreas
11-01-2008, 11:34 PM
Wouldnt it be the ultimate irony if Obama actually was the Illuminati's man. Rockefellers, rotthschilds etc etc...
It would be something no one would think of...
dont you guys have 3th party candidates to?
Yeah it's a shame if not something worse.
To think out of a population of 300 million there are only two parties.
When you stop to think about it the differences between the Democans and Repulicrates are minor.Serbia(the only other country I have interest in) a country of 8 million people has 400 registered parties, of which about a dozen sit in the Parliament. When you take away the superficial differences between Dems and Republicans you are left wondering what happened to the constitutional republic.
Dominique
11-02-2008, 12:07 AM
Wouldnt it be the ultimate irony if Obama actually was the Illuminati's man. Rockefellers, rotthschilds etc etc...
It would be something no one would think of...
Except the tinfoil hat crowd.
sinophile
11-02-2008, 12:18 AM
Ha ha ha. Its all really funny.
After a good laugh ask yourself what Democratic committee chairman or member of the majority leadership will be able to withstand an Obama Presidency that exercises more influence in these member's home districts then the members themselves? Then toss in dozens of Federal judges and at least two Supreme Court justices.
The new gold standard in monarchical Presidencies is about to be established.
Andreas
11-02-2008, 12:19 AM
Except the tinfoil hat crowd.
Touchè.............
Euroamerican
11-02-2008, 12:21 AM
Perhaps I'm ignorant on the subject, but has it been stated why Obama wants to do this?
From the CNSF he will create his Sturmabteilung.
Waterman
11-02-2008, 01:01 AM
Cool......so we all get to be in his version of the "Mahdi Army" !
j/k
Johnnyringo
11-02-2008, 01:09 AM
Power to the people my friends.... power to the people...
LineDoggie
11-02-2008, 01:11 AM
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/ObamaYouth2.jpg
p-)
Johnnyringo
11-02-2008, 01:15 AM
Maybe Michelle Obama was talking about the hordes of people on welfare??? maybe???
no no you're right she meant bringing us to a Neo-Nazi socialist state... my bad
Maybe Michelle Obama was talking about the hordes of people on welfare??? maybe???
no no you're right she meant bringing us to a Neo-Nazi socialist state... my bad
Well power was taken from the people a long time ago.Ideas like socalism and fascism do not die they are repackaged and sold under a new name.
Johnnyringo
11-02-2008, 01:36 AM
What do you fear more... losing all your money in a capitalist scam of our markets... or losing all your money in a socialist takeover of the federal government???
Are you smarter than a Wall Street banker??
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 01:03 AM
What do you fear more... losing all your money in a capitalist scam of our markets... or losing all your money in a socialist takeover of the federal government?????
Given that my money is spread out in various investments, such as funds, commodities (oil, precious metals, both ETFs and bullion/rounds) and foreign currencies....the latter.
Market scams can get your money if you're not savvy. Government fiat can get it no matter what you do, short of decamping to another country (even then, they can take steps).
Johnnyringo
11-02-2008, 01:57 AM
LOL.... you can't diversify in such a way that avoids a global recession... ask Warren Buffet...
Johnnyringo
11-02-2008, 02:04 AM
I can defend myself my family and my property in the event of a socialist/marxist/taliban (whatever you fear mongers dream up next) takeover... I can't protect my Pension, 401K, Annuity savings without the help of government regulations....
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 03:00 AM
LOL.... you can't diversify in such a way that avoids a global recession... ask Warren Buffet...
But you can spread (diversify) enough so that, short of an absolute collapse of the international economic structure (at which point everyone is screwed equally), you don't lose significant amounts.
LOL.
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 03:02 AM
I can defend myself my family and my property in the event of a socialist/marxist/taliban (whatever you fear mongers dream up next) takeover
Really? Didn't work so well for the Kulaks (or Trade Unionists, or Gypsies, or any of the other Class Enemies), did it?
angry cow
11-02-2008, 03:17 AM
Civilian National Security Force? Does anyone have any more information regarding the actual implementation?
Is this any different than his planned expansion of Peace Corps? If they had the ability to conduct Stability and Support Operations without military support, it could open a lot of doors that are otherwise closed to American boots on the ground. Many people have been advocating a cabinet-level department whose focus is solely on International Security and Development since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Such a department would certainly work with DoD, but would not necessarily be military per se.
Is he talking about domestic work? He is planning on expanding AmeriCorps as well. Or is this concept some hybrid of the two?
I'm actually curious about the details of such a project, and would like to hear more. I don't need the tin-foil hat or MoveOn.org bull**** from either side though.
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 03:23 AM
Civilian National Security Force? Does anyone have any more information regarding the actual implementation?
I've heard no followup, so it might have been just an ad-lib remark. Otherwise, we've no info.
National Security does not imply "more teachers" or "more jobs in inner cities". Unless he is stretching the term to the absolute limits of the definition, he's at least talking about something paramilitary (whether the aformentioned Civil Defense Force or not).
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 03:32 AM
One thing that might show the intent is the layout of the civilian chain of command. If it runs through DoJ, DHS or DoD (all of whom are headed by persons subject to Senate confirmation)...OK. If it runs through a non-Cabinet Executive Branch Agency (iow, no one is subject to Senate confirmation hearings), that's bad.
It would effectively put it under direct supervision by the POTUS, in contrast to every other military or paramilitary entity (who have a double-layer of civilian and military leaders who are subject to Congressional review).
Homeland Security was made into a Cabinet-level Dept so as to make the agency Leadership subject to Congressional oversight and vetting.
angry cow
11-02-2008, 03:36 AM
I've heard no followup, so it might have been just an ad-lib remark. Otherwise, we've no info.
National Security does not imply "more teachers" or "more jobs in inner cities". Unless he is stretching the term to the absolute limits of the definition, he's at least talking about something paramilitary (whether the aformentioned Civil Defense Force or not).
Sounds a lot like the Department of Everything Else espoused by guys like Max Boot, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Robert Kaplan, et al.
The concept of Defense is generally considered protecting sovereign US territory, while Security is defined as connectivity to the outside world. At least in the International Relations field. Historically, the War Department handled Defense, the Department of the Navy handled Security. The whole concept got squeezed together when we said that if anyone threatened our security, we would blow up the planet in 1947. Problem is, we still need a security force, one which builds and maintains global connectivity. Such a force is needed to complete the doctrinal 3 D's of Foreign Policy. Defense, Diplomacy, and Development.
Like I said earlier, there are lots of places where a "Civilian Agency" could get in that a military one couldn't, even if the Civilian Agency borrows a ton of manpower from the military.
angry cow
11-02-2008, 03:38 AM
One thing that might show the intent is the layout of the civilian chain of command. If it runs through DoJ, DHS or DoD (all of whom are headed by persons subject to Senate confirmation)...OK. If it runs through a non-Cabinet Executive Branch Agency (iow, no one is subject to Senate confirmation hearings), that's bad.
It would effectively put it under direct supervision by the POTUS, in contrast to every other military or paramilitary entity (who have a double-layer of civilian and military leaders who are subject to Congressional review).
Homeland Security was made into a Cabinet-level Dept so as to make the agency Leadership subject to Congressional oversight and vetting.
Completely agree, any such group should be subject to congressional oversight, making it a cabinet-level agency is one way, attaching it to an existing Department is another.
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 03:45 AM
Sounds a lot like the Department of Everything Else espoused by guys like Max Boot, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Robert Kaplan, et al.
The concept of Defense is generally considered protecting sovereign US territory, while Security is defined as connectivity to the outside world. At least in the International Relations field. Historically, the War Department handled Defense, the Department of the Navy handled Security. The whole concept got squeezed together when we said that if anyone threatened our security, we would blow up the planet in 1947. Problem is, we still need a security force, one which builds and maintains global connectivity. Such a force is needed to complete the doctrinal 3 D's of Foreign Policy. Defense, Diplomacy, and Development.
Security, in common parlance, is Domestic. It's what you do to make yourself harder to injure/cripple. This can be against either enemy action or natural catastrophe.
Foreign agents endanger our security, but so did Hurricane Katrina (and the annual California Wildfires) and the 9/11 response/recovery process.
External Security (protection/promotion of National Interests), OTOH, is not usually what is meant in these terms.
XShipRider
11-02-2008, 07:04 AM
The Securitate, the Praetorian Guard and Stasi come to mind.
Special police are usually associated with certain styles of government that
have in the past had a negative reputation.What is wrong with the civilian police forces that are currently in place now? In the last decade all around the US we have seen SWAT teams and other special police groups become a bit more militaristic and better equipped.Is Obama anticipating ongoing civil unrest or something else the public is unaware of that would require a new police force?
Agreed.
You're on target for S.W.A.T. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476) also.
His idea stinks of more than just a counter to our civilian controlled military. Whatever happened to plain ol' Neighborhood Watch programs?
NuckmasterJ
11-02-2008, 07:50 AM
This right here has to be the first time I've ever been happy I am not an American. I've always believed they actually have a democracy where they have representation in all levels of government instead of sycophants who vote the party line or get fired.
But this right here would boggle my mind if I was an American.
Just rub your temples and repeat after me. It's only four years. It's only four years. You can make it. Don't watch T.V. Don't read a news paper. Keep your money in a big steel safe and a .45 on your hip. It's only four years.
vryhpyammoadded
11-02-2008, 08:41 AM
I don’t think Obama could create a paramilitary Brown Shirt army without getting hung with electric cord from a street lamp and Capitol Hill burned but I’m certain something more akin to Mao’s Little Red Book toting youth armies could slip by. Hell, they’re doing it in England what with the little gween book.
I can’t remember the quote but I believe it was Stalin who said something about nosy little old ladies fingering counter revolutionaries being his most powerful enforcers. Nazi Germany had its Blocklieters while Mao simply added another level to it via the education system and brainwashed youth.
Imagine your own kid and neighbors potential threats to finger you for anti government thinking.
Dominique
11-02-2008, 08:47 AM
I don’t think Obama could create a paramilitary Brown Shirt army without getting hung with electric cord from a street lamp and Capitol Hill burned but I’m certain something more akin to Mao’s Little Red Book toting youth armies could slip by. Hell, they’re doing it in England what with the little gween book.
I can’t remember the quote but I believe it was Stalin who said something about nosy little old ladies fingering counter revolutionaries being his most powerful enforcers. Nazi Germany had its Blocklieters while Mao simply added another level to it via the education system and brainwashed youth.
Imagine your own kid and neighbors potential threats to finger you for anti government thinking.
As it is, the government already encourages you to call and report "suspicious" or possible "terrorist" activities. That's not counting things like data mining, unauthorized phone taps, and all the other goodies they're allowed to do thanks to the Patriot Act. As for what the hell Obama was talking about, I'm not sure, but I can't see some form of paramilitary defense corps being formed, but I could see an emergency management/civil defense organization as FEMA still acts like the keystone cops.
Ritual
11-02-2008, 08:49 AM
I'm reporting you to the ministry of change for improper dogma. p-)
pekka elo
11-02-2008, 09:22 AM
You guys have a pretty wild imagination.
I bet he means in effect an expansion of the Homeland Security. That is in my opinion a very sensible statement because terrorism cannot be beaten only by military means. Even though policing might seem like pansy business to you Americans, but you can't fight terrorists with tanks and missiles in your homeland. Those who can potentially commit terrorist acts probably already live in the US.
Integration and education of immigrants are not to be forgotten either.
Look at Great Britain, for instance, where terrorist networks have unfolded and now the situation seems more stable.
And I very much hope Obama wins.
vryhpyammoadded
11-02-2008, 09:24 AM
I'm reporting you to the ministry of change for improper dogma. p-)
It's cool, the day "they" come I'll let them know I'm all out of bubble gum with a big smile on my face.
why such a force? isnt enough soldiers and military equippement in USA?
XShipRider
11-02-2008, 10:02 AM
Just rub your temples and repeat after me. It's only four years. It's only four years. You can make it. Don't watch T.V. Don't read a news paper. Keep your money in a big steel safe and a .45 on your hip. It's only four years.
The trifecta (sic) of Pelosi, Reid and Obama spell doom for the 2nd Amendment. You can skip the .45 on your hip unless you wanna get cut down by the "National Police Force."
You guys have a pretty wild imagination.
I bet he means in effect an expansion of the Homeland Security. That is in my opinion a very sensible statement because terrorism cannot be beaten only by military means. Even though policing might seem like pansy business to you Americans, but you can't fight terrorists with tanks and missiles in your homeland. Those who can potentially commit terrorist acts probably already live in the US.
No one knows what he means because he so often speaks in circles. Maybe you're right, but you could very well be way off. The scary part is he won't reveal Plan A or Plan 1 to anyone in other than the most ambiguous terms at this point. His past makes his stand clear on many issues, but people have been known to diverge once in office.
A one-party rule with clear, strong majorities in both House and Senate is very dangerous. If you think Bush trampled on freedoms, and there are many who believe this, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
No one knows what he means because he so often speaks in circles.
Yup. Sounds to me like he's planning on being President for a long time. Like....maybe...longer than eight years. And I betcha the corrupt US media at large, wouldn't even say a peep.
And the thought of Obama, Pelosi and Reid running this country, essentially unchalleged, and with the help of a leftist media is down right scary to me.
Hopefully, these three won't completely destroy my country, before the American people end up throwing them out.
Dominique
11-02-2008, 11:23 AM
You guys have a pretty wild imagination.
I bet he means in effect an expansion of the Homeland Security. That is in my opinion a very sensible statement because terrorism cannot be beaten only by military means. Even though policing might seem like pansy business to you Americans, but you can't fight terrorists with tanks and missiles in your homeland. Those who can potentially commit terrorist acts probably already live in the US.
Integration and education of immigrants are not to be forgotten either.
Look at Great Britain, for instance, where terrorist networks have unfolded and now the situation seems more stable.
And I very much hope Obama wins.
I don't have a problem with an expansion of the DHS (it's actually trying to hire close to 5,000 more BP Agents, as well as more CBP officers, increasing the size of the Coast Guard; developing SOF and CT capabilities for the CG, and and increasing its analytical abilities, amongst other things). I'm also for increasing funding to help assimilate LEGAL immigrants into the US (more inspectors to conduct background checks and additional clerks to process paperwork, language training, counselors to help them when they first arrive, etc.). I'm also for the agencies we have streamlining their operations, sharing information, and working with local governments to coordinate their activities. Things like joint terrorism task forces, intelligence fusion cells, etc. etc.
What I am not for is a new para-military style police/law enforcement agency that will duplicate the efforts of agencies we already have. Or tries to style itself as a domestic military force. That's just not going to fly. There is absolutely NO need to create this "Corps" and waste more US taxpayer money. We have law enforcement, intelligence, and security services that are quite capable of defending us, if they are used effectively, and not wasted.
And as far as Obama goes, I for one, am not hopeful that Obama wins. Not because I think he's some sort of terrorist sleeper, hates America, or any of the other dumbass conspiracy theories I've seen posted, or heard, but because I don't like many of his stated economic policies, or silly ideas like this.
Dominique
11-02-2008, 11:26 AM
Yup. Sounds to me like he's planning on being President for a long time. Like....maybe...longer than eight years. And I betcha the corrupt US media at large, wouldn't even say a peep.
I seriously doubt it. Obama may be a lot of things, but I don't see him turning into some self appointed dictator out to seize power. I do see him making a LOT of promises he's going to have trouble keeping, and getting us even deeper into debt.
California Joe
11-02-2008, 11:28 AM
Dom, why do you hate black people?
p-)
I seriously doubt it. Obama may be a lot of things, but I don't see him turning into some self appointed dictator out to seize power.
If he did, do you think that his media minions would have a problem with it?
Midav
11-02-2008, 11:39 AM
If he did, do you think that his media minions would have a problem with it?
Not if it's MSNBC:
http://journalism.org/node/13436
p-)
LineDoggie
11-02-2008, 11:46 AM
Obama Holding Office for Longer than Eight years wouldnt happen. Thats the same crap we've been hearing about Bush for Years now. Man aint even President Yet, and people are saying he will be an American Idi Amin President for Life........
Obama Holding Office for Longer than Eight years wouldnt happen. Thats the same crap we've been hearing about Bush for Years now. Man aint even President Yet, and people are saying he will be an American Idi Amin President for Life........
I was being facetious. Well, half facetious.
bugkill
11-02-2008, 11:58 AM
You guys have a pretty wild imagination.
I bet he means in effect an expansion of the Homeland Security. That is in my opinion a very sensible statement because terrorism cannot be beaten only by military means. Even though policing might seem like pansy business to you Americans, but you can't fight terrorists with tanks and missiles in your homeland. Those who can potentially commit terrorist acts probably already live in the US.
Integration and education of immigrants are not to be forgotten either.
Look at Great Britain, for instance, where terrorist networks have unfolded and now the situation seems more stable.
And I very much hope Obama wins.
Dude, you pretty much nailed it. Many of you guys have absolutely no clue what the effect the War on Terror has had on our forces (both active duty and reserves). There have been many guard units that been deployed to active duty bases in order to keep things going, while the AD units deployed. The problem was that many of those guard and reserve units were needed overseas to help with support for the fight.
The idea behind the Civilian National Security Force would be that a sizeable civilian force would fill in the role of national defense, and that would lead the military to be more flexible in its deployments. I had a similar idea, but I would have liked for it to be a mandatory service for all qualified US citizens that are over 18 yrs old. The security force will not be like the military, but more like a law enforcement branch with a mixture of support forces that could take over functions where the miltary (guard and reserve) could be freed up to help overseas, or bolster their ranks during certain stateside emergencies (or take it over entirely).
It would be very tough to implement, but it something that the country should definitely heads towards. I do not want the draft to be made for our Armed Forces, but to help bolster national defense and emergencies. I'm absolutely 100% for mandatory national service, but it should not have anything to do with the US military. We are doing fine with our all-volunteer force, but it would be nice to see more of our guard and reserve units relieved of some of those national (and state) tasks.
bugkill
11-02-2008, 12:03 PM
If he did, do you think that his media minions would have a problem with it?
You guys make me laugh with all this doomsday talk about Obama. I laugh at the liberals that say the same thing about Bush, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a dictator in the United States. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a communist as president. It would be suicide (not political suicide, but where a life is taken) for any president to get into office, and all of sudden becomes some communist, or dictator.
This country would not stand for it and every politician knows this. Obama is going to be very much to the center for the next 4 years if he is elected, so people need to stop with all the crazy talk, because the day a president takes office and starts coming off as a real communist, he/she will overthrown in a very violent manner.
wildcat
11-02-2008, 12:08 PM
Dude, you pretty much nailed it. Many of you guys have absolutely no clue what the effect the War on Terror has had on our forces (both active duty and reserves). There have been many guard units that been deployed to active duty bases in order to keep things going, while the AD units deployed. The problem was that many of those guard and reserve units were needed overseas to help with support for the fight.
The idea behind the Civilian National Security Force would be that a sizeable civilian force would fill in the role of national defense, and that would lead the military to be more flexible in its deployments. I had a similar idea, but I would have liked for it to be a mandatory service for all qualified US citizens that are over 18 yrs old. The security force will not be like the military, but more like a law enforcement branch with a mixture of support forces that could take over functions where the miltary (guard and reserve) could be freed up to help overseas, or bolster their ranks during certain stateside emergencies (or take it over entirely).
It would be very tough to implement, but it something that the country should definitely heads towards. I do not want the draft to be made for our Armed Forces, but to help bolster national defense and emergencies. I'm absolutely 100% for mandatory national service, but it should not have anything to do with the US military. We are doing fine with our all-volunteer force, but it would be nice to see more of our guard and reserve units relieved of some of those national tasks.
We do not need a Civil Defense force, there is no need for it at all. I do agree the services have been though a rough time, and it is hard on them and there families. I hope we can start really scaling back in Iraq, this will relieve the pressure. The last thing I want to see in this country is a large Civil defense force, way to my power. We need to keep the power with the people not the government.
wildcat
11-02-2008, 12:11 PM
You guys make me laugh with all this doomsday talk about Obama. I laugh at the liberals that say the same thing about Bush, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a dictator in the United States. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a communist as president. It would be suicide (not political suicide, but where a life is taken) for any president to get into office, and all of sudden becomes some communist, or dictator.
This country would not stand for it and every politician knows this. Obama is going to be very much to the center for the next 4 years if he is elected, so people need to stop with all the crazy talk, because the day a president takes office and starts coming off as a real communist, he/she will overthrown in a very violent manner.
I agree, it is very funny, Obama has said some radical things, but I do not see him as a dictator. I have trust that congress and the senate will keep him in check not all dems are for his agenda. As long as we can keep the checks and balances I think it will work out fine, he is not my choice for pres, nor did I vote for him.
As long as we can keep the checks and balances I think it will work out fine, he is not my choice for pres, nor did I vote for him.
How exactly do you get checks and balances when the Senate and the House are lead by leftist wingnuts and the media, ( ie, CNBC, NYT, LAT, etc.) would applaud Obama, even if he sacrificed a virgin and ate her still beating heart on inauguration day.
wildcat
11-02-2008, 12:20 PM
How exactly do you get checks and balances when the Senate and the House are lead by leftist wingnuts and the media, ( ie, CNBC, NYT, LAT, etc.) would applaud Obama, even if he sacrificed a virgin and ate her still beating heart on inauguration day.
Not all dems are the loonly liberals.
Not all dems are the loonly liberals.
Let's hope.
vgmaster
11-02-2008, 12:21 PM
I would certainly love to see this in the show 24.
wildcat
11-02-2008, 12:24 PM
Let's hope.
the dems are moving more and more from the working mans party, to the liberal big government scare you party. There is a void opening in the center, I am hoping some independent party can fill it.
LineDoggie
11-02-2008, 12:25 PM
Dude, you pretty much nailed it. Many of you guys have absolutely no clue what the effect the War on Terror has had on our forces (both active duty and reserves). There have been many guard units that been deployed to active duty bases in order to keep things going, while the AD units deployed. The problem was that many of those guard and reserve units were needed overseas to help with support for the fight.
Gee, I never knew this as I spent 13 months at USMA West Point doing QRF and Force Pro for the 1/1 Infantry* after the 9-11 Attack. And then my Tour in Baghdad '04-'05, all with the same National Guard Regiment. It's called being a Soldier, you go where Needed/Ordered.
We are doing fine with our all-volunteer force, but it would be nice to see more of our guard and reserve units relieved of some of those national (and state) tasks. State Defence Forces were used in World Wars One & Two for just that Role(National Defence). Those are the Guys who get made Jokes about around here every week.
*( 1/1 IN had exactly 18, 11 Series MOS assigned to it in Sept, 2001. They were using Academy Professors as a Security force when we arrived. LTG. William J. Lennox was up to his elbows in a Car Engine doing Vehicle Searches. )
bugkill
11-02-2008, 12:27 PM
Let's hope.
Chaz, you seem to forget that the republicans held complete power from 2000 to late 2006, and I do not remember our country becoming some bible thumping right wing conservative country. Also, many liberal agendas had flousihed during that time as well.
Not much is going to change in your life just because the dems take control. There are way more moderate democrats than the radicals, and all they do with the radical left is use them to win elections, not implement policies. Obama wants to be president for 8 years, so he will be very much to the center on many issues, mark my words.
bugkill
11-02-2008, 12:35 PM
Gee, I never knew this as I spent 13 months at USMA West Point doing QRF and Force Pro for the 1/1 Infantry* after the 9-11 Attack. And then my Tour in Baghdad '04-'05, all with the same National Guard Regiment. It's called being a Soldier, you go where Needed/Ordered.
State Defence Forces were used in World Wars One & Two for just that Role(National Defence). Those are the Guys who get made Jokes about around here every week.
*( 1/1 IN had exactly 18, 11 Series MOS assigned to it in Sept, 2001. They were using Academy Professors as a Security force when we arrived. LTG. William J. Lennox was up to his elbows in a Car Engine doing Vehicle Searches. )
I know exactly what it means to be a soldier (got over 15 years and counting) and your 11B MOS (which I have as well) is better suited overseas, not at f**kin' West Point pulling damn guard duty. Also, only fake ass soldiers would sit back and make jokes about others that are doing a national service, especially when the force would not be aligned with the military.
I do thank you for making my point for me though, and that is that all these guard and reserve units can have more flexible with being used during a time of fighting 2 wars. Do we need infantryman to be filling sandbags in Indiana, when we could use them in the mountains of A-stan? Why in the hell can't these young americans earn their damn keep, and serve their country nationally (after a careful screening process), dealing with security at airports and other places, so that reserve and guard forces can do their "real" jobs with supporting the nation's fight overseas (where we need them most)?
That is all that I'm saying.
WarDancer
11-02-2008, 12:42 PM
You guys make me laugh with all this doomsday talk about Obama. I laugh at the liberals that say the same thing about Bush, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a dictator in the United States. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a communist as president. It would be suicide (not political suicide, but where a life is taken) for any president to get into office, and all of sudden becomes some communist, or dictator.
This country would not stand for it and every politician knows this. Obama is going to be very much to the center for the next 4 years if he is elected, so people need to stop with all the crazy talk, because the day a president takes office and starts coming off as a real communist, he/she will overthrown in a very violent manner.
See, this is how dictatorships develope. People keep on thinking, "Oh, this could never happen here, we're a democracy, it'll never happen!" And slowly but surely, rights are taken away. The Bill of Rights eroded away, what did Obama call it? The "Negative Bill of Rights".
When you have a congress, media and judiciary all in the same party you have a "perfect storm" for a dictatorship. Throw in the masses, who by all appearances are quite content to being hypnotized, and you have a recipe for disaster the likes of which the US has never seen before.
Maybe he is just talking about Civil Defense, in Spain we have "Proteccion civil" they are volunters who are deployed in case of disaster, or for the assistance of people in great gatherings (faints, falls, lost kids...) they are like a grown helpful version of the boy scouts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_civil_defense#Post-Cold_War
photos of spanish Proteccion civil:
http://images.google.es/images?gbv=2&&hl=es&q=proteccion+civil&&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=18
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 12:58 PM
I think we're all talking (variously) about 3 different things:
#1: A large Rescue/Recovery service, like the German THW I referenced. A good idea.
#2: An auxiliary paramilitary. Not a good idea.
#3: A second army that avoids the constitutional checks placed on the US Army (JCS and Cabinet-level civilians). Very bad.
Chaz, you seem to forget that the republicans held complete power from 2000 to late 2006, and I do not remember our country becoming some bible thumping right wing conservative country. Also, many liberal agendas had flousihed during that time as well.
Not much is going to change in your life just because the dems take control. There are way more moderate democrats than the radicals, and all they do with the radical left is use them to win elections, not implement policies. Obama wants to be president for 8 years, so he will be very much to the center on many issues, mark my words.
Two things.
First, the media. No republican could say a word or make a move or voice an opinion without fear of crucifiction by a hostile media. No such watchdog will exist for Obama/Reid/Pelosi - the media will protect them to the death.
Second, by 2000, many or most republicans in Congress were moderates. Can we say the same about most of the dems we have now?
California Joe
11-02-2008, 02:53 PM
So you mean the 3 years I spent listening to the media talk about a blowjob was all in my mind?
Newsflash you dink, there are plenty of Democrats buried at Arlington too. Republicans don't have a lock on patriotism or serving your country.
IraGlacialis
11-02-2008, 03:04 PM
Republicans don't have a lock on patriotism or serving your country.
Why do you hate America?
p-)
So you mean the 3 years I spent listening to the media talk about a blowjob was all in my mind?
Newsflash you dink, there are plenty of Democrats buried at Arlington too. Republicans don't have a lock on patriotism or serving your country.
I wasn't talking who is or is not buried at Arlington, and my name isn't dink.
philbob
11-02-2008, 03:39 PM
So you mean the 3 years I spent listening to the media talk about a blowjob was all in my mind?
Newsflash you dink, there are plenty of Democrats buried at Arlington too. Republicans don't have a lock on patriotism or serving your country.
Thats true but those democrats are cut from an entierly diffrent cloth, the vast majority of the ones now don't even understand the notion of sacrafice p-)
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 04:20 PM
Not to directly compare with the Nazis, but:
Himmler was appointed Reichsführer-SS in January 1929. The SS then had 280 members and was a mere battalion of the much larger Sturmabteilung (SA).
By 1933, the SS numbered 52,000 members. By the end of the next year, it had over 209,000 members. It was also a primarily civilian organization (although with strong paramilitary overtones), the Waffen-SS being a later creation (out of SS police forces).
A lot can happen in four years. Especially when you can put the .gov behind the Party Stalwarts.
While this NCSF might be vaporware or something mostly harmless, it does deserve watching.
vryhpyammoadded
11-02-2008, 04:40 PM
Obama’s talk of this organization smacks of inexperience, frustration and foolishness or worse, possible sedition. There are already plenty of organizations covering many of these issues and if he wanted to increase coverage than he should simply expand their size with more funding and possibly some reorganization.
Typically when a politician begins talking of grander things like creating whole new systems duplicating those currently in existence; he’s either frustrated with the current entrenched bureaucracy resisting his demands or worse, planning sedition with a parallel bureaucracy along with laws and regulations to provide an antagonistic and competing shadow government to protect and empower his constituency.
I’m not saying he intends to build a parallel government, but I am warning people to keep a very close eye on this sort of behavior. Contrary to some opinions, I feel America “IS” ripe for a corrupt subculture to pull this sort of eventual nation killing attack in the near future.
Really, chances are it’s all a simple extension of his frustration with the local entrenched bureaucracies he dealt with as a community organizer and Obama hopes to gain an executive strong arm to bash them with. Not a good option in my opinion. There are plenty of other executive powers in existence and available to a President with strong leadership ability and a suicidal urge to tangle with the very powerful Congressional legal WMD.
Nothing new is needed, only guts and determination.
Well, also my normal plug for LESS Government. I know, aint gonna happen…
California Joe
11-02-2008, 04:51 PM
Thats true but those democrats are cut from an entierly diffrent cloth, the vast majority of the ones now don't even understand the notion of sacrafice p-)
So it was just the Democrats that W was worried about when he told us the best way to support the War on Terror was to all go to the mall.
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 05:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/GOlgZo5e7gI&hl=en&fs=1
A bit dramatic (if historically accurate), but a good illustration of the need for Seperation of Powers.
MichaelF
11-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Obama chooses his scripted words very, very carefully. Throwing the term "national security" in there, and equating it with the military, does not fill me with confidence that he is talking about reading stories to the blind.
LineDoggie
11-02-2008, 07:18 PM
Jimmy Carter V2.0
iLikeFlickerstick
11-02-2008, 07:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
I think this is big enough news to have its own discussion. What does this mean? He made it clear he wants it to have parity with the current US Military.
There are plenty of foreign examples in the 20th Century where nations had parallel defense establishments. One was usually politically oriented while the other was specifically for national defense.
People should be very concerned about this.
helomech
11-02-2008, 07:31 PM
So it was just the Democrats that W was worried about when he told us the best way to support the War on Terror was to all go to the mall.
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8504/americaisnotatwarve7.jpg
philbob
11-02-2008, 07:42 PM
So it was just the Democrats that W was worried about when he told us the best way to support the War on Terror was to all go to the mall.
Well here is the thing, Obama and i paraphrase, said "we are the party of FDR and JFK" at the his acceptance speech but the diffrence between JFK, FDR and the modern day party couldnt be farther. The fact is those men and they were great men they took an active intrest in the defense of this nation, FDR championed the creation of the modern US Naval concept of a two ocean navy, JFK served and later on personally ordered the addition of 5in cannons to the Nuclear cruiser Longbeach.
The modern demorcratic party is more intent on loosing the war, prematurely convitcitng our service members of murder (murtha), and buying votes (then new GI bill) If you look at Obama's plan it is nothing more then social activism for veterans, and anything about future procurments and modernization is basicly mute or ripped straight from what Bush suggested in the 2007 state of the union.
And that stuff about Bush telling people to goto the mall is bull**** becuase it was in realitiy a poorly phrased version of we have nothing to fear but fear it self and we shouldnt be affraid to live.....:bash:
11 Bravo
11-02-2008, 07:45 PM
The Securitate, the Praetorian Guard and Stasi come to mind.
Don't forget the SA & SS. So what would a possible Oblahma as potus call it... I'm thinking the Schwarz Korps.
philbob
11-02-2008, 07:50 PM
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8504/americaisnotatwarve7.jpg
The question is is that bush's fault tho? I was in marines and went to iraq but i made the choice to serve, Im personally all for reactivating the draft and placing this country all real wartime footing
On another note that is a very poingt picture
iLikeFlickerstick
11-02-2008, 07:52 PM
you know the fact that those words came out of Obama's mouth means absolutely nothing. If he didn't say it, than whoever else is the next President would have said it. It's about conditioning and preparing the public for what is coming regardless of who the president is.
You think this is all about Obama and some personal quest for power?? Obama will be a spokesman for the financial and political interests of this country, which by the way, are not just American interests anymore.
And also, Americans may be at the mall all day, and that is disgusting, but why the hell should Americans be at war like the Corps is? The Corps ain't fighting for America, Democracy or freedom. They fight for Exxon, Haliburton, the IMF and the World Bank. PERIOD. THank you. Have a nice night.
11 Bravo
11-02-2008, 07:54 PM
Why do you hate America?
p-)
Ira ; Cali is one of those elite northeastern US types....Left coast or east coast it's pretty much the same mentality when near the ocean for some odd reason.
seraosha
11-02-2008, 07:58 PM
"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic.
The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has be abated! My first act, with this new authority, is to create a Grand Army of the Republic, to counter the increasing threat of the Separatists." ―Barak Obama PalpatineAnyone else wondering when the mask is coming off?
Maybe my tin foil's not tight enough, but do you all think maybe, when he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set", he was talking about making more use of "soft power" rather than anything like the Sturmabteilung?
His national service plan:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/07/02/national.service.fact.sheet.final.pdf
helomech
11-02-2008, 08:01 PM
Anyone else wondering when the mask is coming off?
Where is our Luke Sywalker?
budgie
11-02-2008, 08:23 PM
Thats true but those democrats are cut from an entierly diffrent cloth, the vast majority of the ones now don't even understand the notion of sacrafice p-)
The vast majority of Democrats can at least spell 'sacrafice' properly...
therifleman
11-02-2008, 08:40 PM
So what does this mean? If I'm holding an anti-Obama convention in my backyard, I'm going to have some kind of Obama-SS knocking at my door?
philbob
11-02-2008, 08:47 PM
The vast majority of Democrats can at least spell 'sacrafice' properly...
oooh proper spelling on a webforum...not my highest priority, and dont be so sure about that.
budgie
11-02-2008, 08:59 PM
Well it's a heavy word to bandy about. I believe under the right circumstances even those terrible hippy democrats would be willing to 'sacrifice' whatever it took. But I think unfortunately words like 'sacrifice' and 'patriotism' have been hijacked by the Right and used to sell the neocon agenda in recent years. If you are worried that more dems aren't signing up, 'sacrifice' does not equal following your leadership into foreign wars based on flimsy evidence. Serving one's country is admirable but there are times to question one's leaders as well.
EZFEED
11-02-2008, 09:25 PM
Anyone else wondering when the mask is coming off?
ROFLMAO!!!!rofl
California Joe
11-02-2008, 09:51 PM
And that stuff about Bush telling people to goto the mall is bull**** becuase it was in realitiy a poorly phrased version of we have nothing to fear but fear it self and we shouldnt be affraid to live.....:bash:
Oh for chrissakes relax, I know that, I learned to decypher "W Speak".
Don't you f*cking bash me with that little gay smilie again or I'll show you exactly how the ban stick works.
Bravo, I live in the mountains not near the ocean. You sound like a Flatlander. We don't cotton to yer kind up here. :)
RECON DOC
11-02-2008, 09:54 PM
Obamas civilian security.
http://www.youtube.com/v/AdF5TQIv1fU
philbob
11-02-2008, 10:06 PM
Oh for chrissakes relax, I know that, I learned to decypher "W Speak".
Don't you f*cking bash me with that little gay smilie again or I'll show you exactly how the ban stick works.
Bravo, I live in the mountains not near the ocean. You sound like a Flatlander. We don't cotton to yer kind up here. :)
:bash::bash::bash::bash::bash:
philbob
11-02-2008, 10:11 PM
Well it's a heavy word to bandy about. I believe under the right circumstances even those terrible hippy democrats would be willing to 'sacrifice' whatever it took. But I think unfortunately words like 'sacrifice' and 'patriotism' have been hijacked by the Right and used to sell the neocon agenda in recent years. If you are worried that more dems aren't signing up, 'sacrifice' does not equal following your leadership into foreign wars based on flimsy evidence. Serving one's country is admirable but there are times to question one's leaders as well.
Ill admit i came off a bit angry sounding there, but there does come a point where some of the moral relativism that the left enjoys goes too far in my opinion, Im not worried about dems joining up I would like to see more people serve our great country, and you are right sometimes leadership needs to be questioned but it should not be turned into a fashion show like much of the left of this country has done
Dominique
11-02-2008, 10:46 PM
Thats true but those democrats are cut from an entierly diffrent cloth, the vast majority of the ones now don't even understand the notion of sacrafice p-)
And you know this for a fact? How? Silly ass comments, like this, are part of the reason the county is in the state it's in now. You make blanket statements without any proof to actually back it up.
LineDoggie
11-02-2008, 11:11 PM
So what does this mean? If I'm holding an anti-Obama convention in my backyard, I'm going to have some kind of Obama-SS knocking at my door?
Obamasturmbannfuhrer Biden of the Sicherhietsdienst would like a word with you.........:)
Dominique
11-02-2008, 11:19 PM
The modern demorcratic party is more intent on loosing the war
Once again, you know this for a fact? As there are several Democrats that have actively served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or have family members serving there.
prematurely convitcitng our service members of murder (murtha)
So the comments of one loud mouthed idiot, are representive of roughly 50% of the US population? How do you figure that?
and buying votes (then new GI bill)
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying the new GI Bill is buying votes? Or do you feel that vets don't deserve an improved GI Bill? Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you look at Obama's plan it is nothing more then social activism for veterans
Which plan is this? And what does it state?
, and anything about future procurments and modernization is basicly mute, or ripped straight from what Bush suggested in the 2007 state of the union.
So you're saying he basically wants to either keep quiet and see how things develop, or will continue to implement a plan that's already under development. Or, am I misreading what you've posted?
philbob
11-02-2008, 11:38 PM
Once again, you know this for a fact? As there are several Democrats that have actively served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or have family members serving there.
So the comments of one loud mouthed idiot, are representive of roughly 50% of the US population? How do you figure that?
IF the rest of their side doesnt shut him up then yes
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying the new GI Bill is buying votes? Or do you feel that vets don't deserve an improved GI Bill? Correct me if I'm wrong.
it is they cant fund the GWOT but they can fund post service health bennifited and eduacation beninifts, and as a former serviceman who took part in combat operations in iraq I can tell you no one (and by that i mean a very very very small minority) was asking for it, only a few people who care more about what they get out of it then why they joined this nations armed service
Which plan is this? And what does it state?
his plans on national defense
So you're saying he basically wants to either keep quiet and see how things develop, or will continue to implement a plan that's already under development. Or, am I misreading what you've posted
Eztyga
11-02-2008, 11:59 PM
Just remember:
1. "Don't Panic"
2. Fuzzy Wuzzies "They don't like it up 'em!"
Ezy p-)
Dominique
11-03-2008, 12:08 AM
IF the rest of their side doesnt shut him up then yes
So, by that definition, that means that every time a Republican says something asinine, he/she speaks for the entire Republican party.
it is they cant fund the GWOT but they can fund post service health bennifited and eduacation beninifts, and as a former serviceman who took part in combat operations in iraq I can tell you no one (and by that i mean a very very very small minority) was asking for it, only a few people who care more about what they get out of it then why they joined this nations armed service
Last I checked, a very large number of Republicans supported increased benefits for vets. And as a currently serving combat arms troop still sitting in Iraq, I can assure you, WE are very happy with the new GI Bill. But, I'm sure you'd have signed up and done it for free if asked.
his plans on national defense
You stated his plans for national defense consist of either keeping quiet on the subject, or continuing what's already been proposed, so how do his plans equate to some sort of social activism?
philbob
11-03-2008, 12:27 AM
So, by that definition, that means that every time a Republican says something asinine, he/she speaks for the entire Republican party.
acutally that would help things out quite a bit if we every party took care of their own
Last I checked, a very large number of Republicans supported increased benefits for vets. And as a currently serving combat arms troop still sitting in Iraq, I can assure you, WE are very happy with the new GI Bill. But, I'm sure you'd have signed up and done it for free if asked.
just becuase republicans supported it doesn mean it was the nessecary thing to do, and im glad the men in your unit have the time to enjoy it (GI Bill), and use the internet for that matter things have certinly changed sence i was there. But I guess that is what being a patriot is all about, who said Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country....hmmm
You stated his plans for national defense consist of either keeping quiet on the subject, or continuing what's already been proposed, so how do his plans equate to some sort of social activism
His entire plans on national securit talks more about health bennifits for veterans rather then procurment and nessecarry force expansions or reductions , reconstituiton and redefintion of the defense forces which are much more important then the post service education.goto Barrackobama.com if you do not belive me
NineLine
11-03-2008, 12:33 AM
Great more government. Thats an awesome idea Obama.
Atlantic Friend
11-03-2008, 02:39 AM
I think the NAZIS did this during their formative years. I believe they were called "brown shirts" back then. Then they were replaced by the SS storm troopers. I can see the only reason for this "civilan military corps" is to track down and punish non-believers. And no, I am not kidding. Fascism is coming America, wake up before its too late. The similarities between pre-Nazi Germany and current America are startling!!
Indeed. Like, electing a left-leaning, half-black head of state. MAJOR giveaway, that. :roll:
Seriously, WD, read up a little more on the Third Reich.
The "OMG Obama is a Communist !" claims are outlandish enough, no need to go into "OMG Obama is a Fascist, he's the new Hitler !".
WarDancer
11-03-2008, 03:02 AM
Indeed. Like, electing a left-leaning, half-black head of state. MAJOR giveaway, that. :roll:
Seriously, WD, read up a little more on the Third Reich.
The "OMG Obama is a Communist !" claims are outlandish enough, no need to go into "OMG Obama is a Fascist, he's the new Hitler !".
Well, I dont think Barry Obama is going to be establishing concentration camps any time soon, but he is definitly consolidating his power with the ignorant masses. My analogy with the third Reich had more to do with the grab of power and crushing any dissent with a complicit congress, media and judiciary much like Hitler did in 30's Germany.
Obama's policies are very much fascist when you consider he wants to re-do the bill of rights (the most precious document in America) and establish this civilian military corps. And no, its not a bunch of civilians running around doing civil duties, its a secret police force meant to subjegate those that dare oppose him.
Look at the fairness doctrine. Its sole purpose is to quell dissent on the airwaves. So now you have a filibuster proof congress, no opposition on the airwaves. I guarantee you this, the internet will now be monitored by government "minders" who will monitor sites like this. Any criticism of the Obama adminsitration will be deemed "hate speech" and the writer will be branded a rascist and shut down.
Dominique
11-03-2008, 03:42 AM
acutally that would help things out quite a bit if we every party took care of their own
So if everyone in the Republican party doesn't support your views, they should leave, or shut up about it, that's asinine.
just becuase republicans supported it doesn mean it was the nessecary thing to do
Well according to you, since no one told them not to vote yes, then apparently they represent the views of the vast majority of the Republican party.
, and im glad the men in your unit have the time to enjoy it (GI Bill), and use the internet for that matter things have certinly changed sence i was there.
We'll have time to use the benefits, that are provided for us, when we return off deployment. For well over 80% of this unit, it's a second year long combat tour. As far as the internet goes, when were not out on mission, we can use it.
But I guess that is what being a patriot is all about, who said Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country....hmmm
Well there high speed, I've been serving my county for close to 17 years now, what are you up to these days. Being the "true" patriot that you are, I'm sure you're still in some sort of reserve or Guard unit, right? If not, what's holding you back. If you're still physically fit, I can point you in the direction of a good recruiter. Interested?
His entire plans on national securit talks more about health bennifits for veterans rather then procurment and nessecarry force expansions or reductions , reconstituiton and redefintion of the defense forces which are much more important then the post service education.goto Barrackobama.com if you do not belive me
Didn't say I didn't believe you, but since I know most presidential candidates talk out the side of their mouth when it comes to defense spending, I'm willing to bet that pretty much anything he says would change dramatically if he's elected. The minute he actually set foot in the position, and sees that things aren't quite as simple as many of his supporters make them out to be, a large chunk of his plans would probably go out the window.
Dominique
11-03-2008, 03:56 AM
Well, I dont think Barry Obama is going to be establishing concentration camps any time soon, but he is definitly consolidating his power with the ignorant masses. My analogy with the third Reich had more to do with the grab of power and crushing any dissent with a complicit congress, media and judiciary much like Hitler did in 30's Germany.
You have got to be kidding me. Next, he'll have black vans "disappearing" people who speak out against him.
Obama's policies are very much fascist when you consider he wants to re-do the bill of rights
Where did he say he wants to re-wright the Bill of Rights?
(the most precious document in America) and establish this civilian military corps. And no, its not a bunch of civilians running around doing civil duties, its a secret police force meant to subjegate those that dare oppose him.
Where are you getting this from? I'd like to know because I've got a stockpile of tinfoil to stop the beams.
Look at the fairness doctrine. Its sole purpose is to quell dissent on the airwaves.
And you know this for a fact? Show me.
So now you have a filibuster proof congress, no opposition on the airwaves.
But I guess silly little things like independent news out lets, the internet, etc. don't count.
I guarantee you this, the internet will now be monitored by government "minders" who will monitor sites like this.
I hate to break the news to you, but the internet, along with phone calls, etc. are already monitored by the government, thanks to the Patriot Act. All of which was implemented by an administration I helped elect into power.
Any criticism of the Obama adminsitration will be deemed "hate speech" and the writer will be branded a rascist and shut down.
I really hope you're able to get the help you need, and soon.
philbob
11-03-2008, 04:00 AM
So if everyone in the Republican party doesn't support your views, they should leave, or shut up about it, that's asinine.
Ideally that would be perfect
Well according to you, since no one told them not to vote yes, then apparently they represent the views of the vast majority of the Republican party.
it does detrach from being a fiscal convservative which i am other then that im pretty liberal socially
We'll have time to use the benefits, that are provided for us, when we return off deployment. For well over 80% of this unit, it's a second year long combat tour. As far as the internet goes, when were not out on mission, we can use it.
I wont debate Unit SOP u guys have the option BZ
Well there high speed, I've been serving my county for close to 17 years now, what are you up to these days. Being the "true" patriot that you are, I'm sure you're still in some sort of reserve or Guard unit, right? If not, what's holding you back. If you're still physically fit, I can point you in the direction of a good recruiter. Interested?
Fought with with I MEF RCT-7 TF 3/3 in Haditha in 06' would of extened the unit commander said no....got out went to college once im done with college its back in for me, in fact i even goto school during the summer to acclerate this process. Also nothin agaisnt guard or reserves I respect anyone who wears the uniform, but I prefer Marine corps green
Didn't say I didn't believe you, but since I know most presidential candidates talk out the side of their mouth when it comes to defense spending, I'm willing to bet that pretty much anything he says would change dramatically if he's elected. The minute he actually set foot in the position, and sees that things aren't quite as simple as many of his supporters make them out to be, a large chunk of his plans would probably go out the window
I think we got off on the wrong foot and i also think we probably hold similar views so truce? Im still up to debating you though
Dominique
11-03-2008, 05:05 AM
Ideally that would be perfect
While it might be "ideal" it'll be a mighty small party.
it does detrach from being a fiscal convservative which i am other then that im pretty liberal socially
On that, we agree, and just so you'll know, I'm an independent that leans toward the conservative side the majority of the time. I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't see Obama as the Anti-Christ (unlike some of the guys who post here. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting government spending back under control, and won't be out there advocating for the creation of new governmental agencies like this silly assed "Security Force".
Fought with with I MEF RCT-7 TF 3/3 in Haditha in 06' would of extened the unit commander said no....got out went to college once im done with college its back in for me, in fact i even goto school during the summer to acclerate this process. Also nothin agaisnt guard or reserves I respect anyone who wears the uniform, but I prefer Marine corps green
Thanks for serving, and I'm quite familiar with the AO you speak of. "Lovely" An Abar. Hit still smells like a giant turd; CKV is a mud hole when it rains; TQ has the best DFAC; Rhamadi seems to undergoing a construction boom (although I do wonder where all these people get money for all the new Chevy Suburbans I see running around); and the Haditha Dam still looks like it's going to fall apart any day now (you would think they'd spend some of that reconstruction cash working on the damn thing or fixing the roads in the area). As far as collage goes, good luck. Are you paying, or is Uncle Sugar picking up the tab (as in are you using your GI Bill)? Why no Marine Corps Reserve? No units available? And you planning on taking a commission?
I think we got off on the wrong foot and i also think we probably hold similar views so truce? Im still up to debating you though
No worries, I don't mind people holding views that differ from mine. What I do have an issue with is people making blanket statements and trying to paint everyone with the same brush.
Ordie
11-03-2008, 05:26 AM
I think this is big enough news to have its own discussion. What does this mean? He made it clear he wants it to have parity with the current US Military.
There are plenty of foreign examples in the 20th Century where nations had parallel defense establishments. One was usually politically oriented while the other was specifically for national defense.
In a nutshell, he does not want another Katrina to happen. Much of that disaster was attributed to the lack of command, control and mitigation.
Just as the Coast Guard is a civilian organization under military control, FEMA should be as well to take action at a moment's notice.
The real danger in our country today is not what terrorist, earthquakes or hurricanes can do to us, but what we can do to ourselves when we are shocked and spooked.
angry cow
11-03-2008, 05:38 AM
I tend to believe that the primary interest of any political party is the growth of that political party.
You can find idiots, perverts, assholes that insinuate nasty things about service members, minorities, other nations and peoples, etc . . .
To say that someone is un-American for identifying with a certain political party is pretty idiotic, especially when each party at any given time represents over 40% of the American population. So what 40% of Americans don't count as Americans? B!tch please . . .
My concern with Obama isn't that he's going to make us all into Muslims or use the constitution as toilet paper, especially not as someone with a background as a civil rights lawyer and community activist. He cares about America, just in a way that is different from some people. As a service member myself, I even see his form of service as on par with my own. People criticize him for the people he has hung around, well my friends and I have sipped Chai with some pretty unsavory characters too, if you go into troubled places at home or abroad, you necessarily work with the people that live there, or your effort is doomed. Obama and McCain represent, in my opinion, two Americans who truly have put their money where their mouth is in terms of National Service.
That being said, I am concerned that he is going to increase government spending at a time when it is dangerous at best to do so. The Federal Government should show some leadership when it comes to spending within your limits. I worry about the two giant sections of the budget that the government has much less control over than it would like to imagine, Social Security and Healthcare. And I worry about rising interest payments eventually driving the government into insolvency. I think the government should get its house in order, even if that means raising taxes AND reducing spending. I know Obama wants to do a lot, and that the only way he can accomplish even a few of his goals is to increase spending dramatically. If he doesn't produce the Change (tm) that he has run his campaign on, people will be dissapointed at best. Thats a lot of pressure to create new programs and spend tax dollars that is going to be hard to fight.
PS: I want the McCain of 2000 back, not the guy who talks to the Evangelist nut jobs. Oh well.
philbob
11-03-2008, 06:27 AM
I tend to believe that the primary interest of any political party is the growth of that political party.
You can find idiots, perverts, assholes that insinuate nasty things about service members, minorities, other nations and peoples, etc . . .
To say that someone is un-American for identifying with a certain political party is pretty idiotic, especially when each party at any given time represents over 40% of the American population. So what 40% of Americans don't count as Americans? B!tch please . . .
My concern with Obama isn't that he's going to make us all into Muslims or use the constitution as toilet paper, especially not as someone with a background as a civil rights lawyer and community activist. He cares about America, just in a way that is different from some people. As a service member myself, I even see his form of service as on par with my own. People criticize him for the people he has hung around, well my friends and I have sipped Chai with some pretty unsavory characters too, if you go into troubled places at home or abroad, you necessarily work with the people that live there, or your effort is doomed. Obama and McCain represent, in my opinion, two Americans who truly have put their money where their mouth is in terms of National Service.
That being said, I am concerned that he is going to increase government spending at a time when it is dangerous at best to do so. The Federal Government should show some leadership when it comes to spending within your limits. I worry about the two giant sections of the budget that the government has much less control over than it would like to imagine, Social Security and Healthcare. And I worry about rising interest payments eventually driving the government into insolvency. I think the government should get its house in order, even if that means raising taxes AND reducing spending. I know Obama wants to do a lot, and that the only way he can accomplish even a few of his goals is to increase spending dramatically. If he doesn't produce the Change (tm) that he has run his campaign on, people will be dissapointed at best. Thats a lot of pressure to create new programs and spend tax dollars that is going to be hard to fight.
PS: I want the McCain of 2000 back, not the guy who talks to the Evangelist nut jobs. Oh well.
First of all i disagree with what you have to say about them being equal on national service, lets not fool our selves into thinking that volunteering to work in the slums is anywhere the same thing as joining your nations military. He does carea about america you are correct there and I do not doubt you or Him but i do belive his belifes about it are all wrong and he is actually the more negative of teh cannidents (look up the october 28th speach where he said we will be worse off if he looses.)
Also, you (most likly) didn't have a choice to have chai with those seedy indviuals Obama had the choice to stay in his hate church for 20+ years and he had the choice to enter into a finacial arangement with the Rezko guy.
**** McCain, I want General Pretraus (sp?)
philbob
11-03-2008, 06:41 AM
While it might be "ideal" it'll be a mighty small party.
I can live with that
On that, we agree, and just so you'll know, I'm an independent that leans toward the conservative side the majority of the time. I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't see Obama as the Anti-Christ (unlike some of the guys who post here. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting government spending back under control, and won't be out there advocating for the creation of new governmental agencies like this silly assed "Security Force".
I dont see him as the anti christ but i do find him a very replusive cannidant and increasingly person, ranging from his innabilty to take a stand (voting presant 130+ is not leadership), to his choice in friends (Wright in particually), to his disdane to the working class the Bitter remarks, and his general lack of knowledge on most subjects (the military and energy look at what he said about coal)
Thanks for serving, and I'm quite familiar with the AO you speak of. "Lovely" An Abar. Hit still smells like a giant turd; CKV is a mud hole when it rains; TQ has the best DFAC; Rhamadi seems to undergoing a construction boom (although I do wonder where all these people get money for all the new Chevy Suburbans I see running around); and the Haditha Dam still looks like it's going to fall apart any day now (you would think they'd spend some of that reconstruction cash working on the damn thing or fixing the roads in the area). As far as collage goes, good luck. Are you paying, or is Uncle Sugar picking up the tab (as in are you using your GI Bill)? Why no Marine Corps Reserve? No units available? And you planning on taking a commission?
You are welcome thankyou as well. God willing i do not intend to return to Iraq i wouldnt mind afghan, I am using the GI bill but the new one doesnt come active till next august so i can minimize use on it fortantly, I seriously belive it was done to buy votes or it would not of been done in an election year espacily by the people who are blasting Bush for an out of control economy.
No worries, I don't mind people holding views that differ from mine. What I do have an issue with is people making blanket statements and trying to paint everyone with the same brush
I make those statments based off the facts i have seen, i grew up in seattle and that is a pretty liberal place, most people i have assoiated with in the military tend to be right of center and that is pretty common as im sure you are aware. So it is easy to have that picture painted of who is patriotic and who isnt, who will put there money where there mouth is and who wont..... On that note i do not belive they are the party of JFK or FDR the majority of the loud part of the party had shown time and again a utter disdane for American values and instutions again and again, Now to be clear i might be painting in a broad brush but i do understand there are people who are dem's who do put there money where there mouth is, there are also republicans who dont but the Dems have made a brandname off being anti everything bush or the republicans are so it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak
angry cow
11-03-2008, 07:02 AM
**** McCain, I want General Pretraus (sp?)
Word. Petraeus 2016, I'm already making t-shirts . . .
Dominique
11-03-2008, 07:30 AM
I dont see him as the anti christ but i do find him a very replusive cannidant and increasingly person, ranging from his innabilty to take a stand (voting presant 130+ is not leadership), to his choice in friends (Wright in particually), to his disdane to the working class the Bitter remarks, and his general lack of knowledge on most subjects (the military and energy look at what he said about coal)
I don't think he disdain for the "working class", but I do believe he's out of touch with them. Namely due to his upbringing, and where he lives.
You are welcome thankyou as well. God willing i do not intend to return to Iraq i wouldnt mind afghan, I am using the GI bill but the new one doesnt come active till next august so i can minimize use on it fortantly, I seriously belive it was done to buy votes or it would not of been done in an election year espacily by the people who are blasting Bush for an out of control economy.
Actually several Republicans and Democrats have been trying to get a new GI Bill, and increased vets benefits passed for several years now. What most people don't know is that the DOD has been lobbying to get the bills killed as they say it'll cost to much money to implement and kill retention (yet they can find money to spend on new dress uniforms, personal transport cabins for general officers, etc.). IMHO, every freaking dime spent on vet benefits is well earned.
I make those statments based off the facts i have seen, i grew up in seattle and that is a pretty liberal place,
Ahh....now I see what the problem is. I'm from VA, and we have a different breed of Democrat, the "Southern Democrat". They tend to be gun owners, go to church, serve in the military, and are generally conservative in their political leanings.
most people i have assoiated with in the military tend to be right of center and that is pretty common as im sure you are aware.
Yep, I tend to be more liberal on many issues, than a lot of people I associate with. What was funny was about two years ago I worked an off duty gig at a very liberal collage. I pissed off a LOT of the students when they decided to get into a debate on everything from the war in Iraq, to the death penalty, and drugs. I thought one girl would faint when I told her in my opinion they need to bring back public executions and make every little billy bad ass in a juvenile facility take a front row seat.
..... On that note i do not belive they are the party of JFK or FDR the majority of the loud part of the party had shown time and again a utter disdane for American values and instutions again and again,
Oh, I agree that the Democratic Party has taken a turn for the worse. They allowed a small minority to take over, and tend to pander to them. With that said, the same goes for the Republican Party. They've allowed a small group neo-con hawks to dominate the party for the last eight years. I really yearn for a third party, one that is fiscally conservative, socially responsible, and actually looks out for what's best for the county, and not for the people or groups making campaign contributions to their party.
orionhawk
11-03-2008, 07:46 PM
oh, my god, do I not like this...:-(
FlintHillBilly
11-03-2008, 09:43 PM
Word. Petraeus 2016, I'm already making t-shirts . . .
You do mean 2012 right? 2016 is an odd year to have a presidential election if im not mistaken. Anyways, no matter what year, id vote for him.
XShipRider
11-04-2008, 07:41 AM
Just as the Coast Guard is a civilian organization under military control, FEMA should be as well to take action at a moment's notice.
(BUZZER SOUNDS) Wrong, per the following point of contention...
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.
"...at all times."
Upon the declaration of war if Congress so directs in the declaration or when the President directs, the Coast Guard shall operate as a service in the Navy, and shall so continue until the President, by Executive order, transfers the Coast Guard back to the Department of Homeland Security. While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy who may order changes in Coast Guard operations to render them uniform, to the extent he deems advisable, with Navy operations.
Enlightenment for all.
MichaelF
11-04-2008, 10:11 PM
Sooooo.....
Will there be snappy uniforms?
LineDoggie
11-04-2008, 10:24 PM
Sooooo.....
Will there be snappy uniforms?
The Best that the Nation Of Islam can provide.
MaverickCowboy
11-05-2008, 01:43 AM
i cant believe this guys comment.
"
The Liberals are in charge.
Finally! Praise GOD!
New Free Health Care!
New Free Education!
New Fairness Doctrine!
New GUN BAN! (ABOUT TIME)
New National Security Force!
New Clean Air (No more coal)
No more hunting (All land will be converted to National Parks).
Much needed - NEW CONSTITUTION!
So Much More! Welcome to the New America! "
whole new country? wouldent it just be easier to move to a new one ? like Cuba? French-Canada? France?
philbob
11-05-2008, 02:18 AM
what happens happens and no one said we cant form a new country if we dont like whats goin on
Dominique
11-05-2008, 02:24 AM
The Best that the Nation Of Islam can provide.
I guess you're one of the people that still thinks Obama is some sort of closet Muslim.
WarDancer
11-05-2008, 03:25 AM
I guess you're one of the people that still thinks Obama is some sort of closet Muslim.
And you dont think he isnt? Wake up and smell the coffee.:bash:
Dominique
11-05-2008, 04:35 AM
And you dont think he isnt? Wake up and smell the coffee.:bash:
He's not Muslin, and even if he was, who the phuck cares. What does that have to do with his ability to govern the U.S., not a damn thing. I don't vote for people based on there religion, but based on their political views. If anyone needs to wake up, it's all of the idiots I see running around crying about Obama is "A Muslim" or he "Doesn't love America". That's BS, he's as American as they get, but he's views on many subjects are FAR to liberal for my tastes, and that's why I don't support him, not because I think he's some Islamic terrorist who's secretly waiting to execute his plans.
The simple fact is he's the President Elect of the US, and in a few short months he'll be the commander and chief. Once he's sworn in, I don't have to like him or his views, but I'll do my duty and follow any legal orders he gives me. If you or I don't like the way he's running things, then in 2012, we better filed a candidate who we think will do a better job at running things. Until then, stop all of the fear mongering and crying and let him get on with the job of trying to run the country, I've got a feeling several of his proposed positions on issues will change once he actually gets into office and sees things aren't going to be as easy as he thinks they are.
eskachig
11-05-2008, 05:13 AM
what happens happens and no one said we cant form a new country if we dont like whats goin onOh I think you're quite wrong about that.
And LOL at all the obama alarmism in this forum. You're worse than the liberals when Bush got reelected. Newsflash, things will probably mostly stay the same, like they always do.
phasio
11-05-2008, 05:48 AM
He's not Muslin, and even if he was, who the phuck cares. What does that have to do with his ability to govern the U.S., not a damn thing. I don't vote for people based on there religion, but based on their political views. If anyone needs to wake up, it's all of the idiots I see running around crying about Obama is "A Muslim" or he "Doesn't love America". That's BS, he's as American as they get, but he's views on many subjects are FAR to liberal for my tastes, and that's why I don't support him, not because I think he's some Islamic terrorist who's secretly waiting to execute his plans.
The simple fact is he's the President Elect of the US, and in a few short months he'll be the commander and chief. Once he's sworn in, I don't have to like him or his views, but I'll do my duty and follow any legal orders he gives me. If you or I don't like the way he's running things, then in 2012, we better filed a candidate who we think will do a better job at running things. Until then, stop all of the fear mongering and crying and let him get on with the job of trying to run the country, I've got a feeling several of his proposed positions on issues will change once he actually gets into office and sees things aren't going to be as easy as he thinks they are.
finally a good post !
playtym
11-05-2008, 05:51 AM
"Civilian National Security Force"?
In Zimbabwe they call them "War Veterans".
Midav
11-05-2008, 07:09 AM
He's not Muslin, and even if he was, who the phuck cares. What does that have to do with his ability to govern the U.S., not a damn thing. I don't vote for people based on there religion, but based on their political views. If anyone needs to wake up, it's all of the idiots I see running around crying about Obama is "A Muslim" or he "Doesn't love America". That's BS, he's as American as they get, but he's views on many subjects are FAR to liberal for my tastes, and that's why I don't support him, not because I think he's some Islamic terrorist who's secretly waiting to execute his plans.
The simple fact is he's the President Elect of the US, and in a few short months he'll be the commander and chief. Once he's sworn in, I don't have to like him or his views, but I'll do my duty and follow any legal orders he gives me. If you or I don't like the way he's running things, then in 2012, we better filed a candidate who we think will do a better job at running things. Until then, stop all of the fear mongering and crying and let him get on with the job of trying to run the country, I've got a feeling several of his proposed positions on issues will change once he actually gets into office and sees things aren't going to be as easy as he thinks they are.
Good post, sans the loving America part. I hope he doesn't follow his wife's views. If this is the first time she's proud of her country, that is rather sad.
http://www.youtube.com/v/LYY73RO_egw&hl
longlivetaiwan
11-05-2008, 02:01 PM
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping
restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of
Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina
unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established
in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that
the mission will be a permanent one.
Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct.1 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/)
Heads up on an article [referenced from the Army Times] which was probably not given sufficient
weight at the time, due to instabilities throughout the Financial System during the same timeframe.
[Late edit]
Correction:
A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated. [Source: Army Times. p-) ]
Dominique
11-05-2008, 11:11 PM
Good post, sans the loving America part. I hope he doesn't follow his wife's views. If this is the first time she's proud of her country, that is rather sad.
The media blew her comments way out of proportion, just as they did with McCain, Pain, and Bush. People who think they don't care about the US are fooling themselves, but I do think they have very naive view of how things are going to work once Obama actually gets into office. Many people think that if we just sit down and talk, things will work out fine, until they actually talk to some of the idiots who hate the US and find out they'll never be willing to talk to us unless we can back things up with force. I really believe that Obama is in for a rude awakening within his first three to six months in office, and he'll adjust many of his stated positions to reflect real world realities. If not, there's always 2012.
FlintHillBilly
11-06-2008, 12:53 AM
The media blew her comments way out of proportion, just as they did with McCain, Pain, and Bush. People who think they don't care about the US are fooling themselves, but I do think they have very naive view of how things are going to work once Obama actually gets into office. Many people think that if we just sit down and talk, things will work out fine, until they actually talk to some of the idiots who hate the US and find out they'll never be willing to talk to us unless we can back things up with force. I really believe that Obama is in for a rude awakening within his first three to six months in office, and he'll adjust many of his stated positions to reflect real world realities. If not, there's always 2012.
What do you mean the meadia blew her comments out of proportion? I mean she said clearly "its her first time being proud to be an american". Far as im concerned she ment what she said or she wouldnt have said it that way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.