Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011 - Page 3

Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011

This is a discussion on Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011 within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As reported by the Washington Post:Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 103

Thread: Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    As reported by the Washington Post:Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans.
    And I'm sure this will be handled with all the courtesy and efficiency of the other FEMA operations we are all familiar with.
    The point as I understand it here, mel, is that FEMA is simply funding a way for local/state authorities to coordinate with military leaders for planning purposes, thus limiting the "middle-man" functions of FEMA. Given FEMA's track record, limiting their involvement seems like a good idea...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array mi2az's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    651
    Me Again,

    With the military protecting us within our borders, I really don't have a real big issue. But here are some things to think about.

    1. We have an enemy that wants to destroy us.
    2. They are willing to kill themselves to accomplish this.
    3. They believe they are doing this for G-ds love and approval.
    4. Their whole culture dying to be a martyr is ingrained in them
    5. They are getting backing from the same governments we do business with

    There are not a lot of options,

    1 We could give in to their wishes
    2 We could become isolationist
    3 We could attempt to do a first strike and wipe all of them out
    4 We could become more of a police state like Europe is
    heading towards.
    5. Or we can trust our soldiers and hope they keep their pledge that they will support the consitution
    "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."

    --Thomas Jefferson --

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,070
    Depending on the types of units involved this could be a good thing. What we need is transportation, medical,chem/bio, and engineers in my opinion.
    Having attended some WMD/Mass Casualty conferences (granted it has been a few years) I was just amazed at some of the "plans" our elected officials and bureuacrats have come up with.

    Example: One jurisdictions plan for a radiation leak at a nuclear facility was to evacuate by means of municipal busses. The only problem was they expected their relatively low paid drivers to make about ten trips each into the hot zone to bring people out! How many folks do you think are going to make multiple trips for about a dollar over minimum wage? How much would I have to pay you?

    We don't need troops to go after the bad guys, we have plenty fo people for that. What we need is qualified people with the right equipment to contain and clean up the mess. We need folks and equipment that can work with the local utilities to keep hospital generators fueled until they are restored to the grid and clean water flowing. We need engineers and forward controllers that could be helicoptered into a post Katrina New Orleans environment and get an airport open for airlifting equipment in and evacuating civilians out.

    If we are talking units appropriate for those missions, I have no problem with it. If you are talking about armored cavalry I would have to question the true motivation behind the choice.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    If they really want to make good use of 20,000 troops, put them on our southern border.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  5. #35
    Senior Member Array boscobeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    upstate new york
    Posts
    1,178
    ""If they really want to make good use of 20,000 troops, put them on our southern border.''
    +1

    Make it 40,000 and include Coast Guard in that number so EVERY ship coming into a US port is inspected 3 miles out.
    bosco

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Based on my reading of the article these forces will be reactionary. If there is a domestic disaster of some sort, they will respond, or if there are multiple instances of disaster that is why they want that number of forces.

    As far as the troops in the middle east go. Maybe some have failed to realize that the Iraqi government has already voted to remove our forces from their country starting in the middle of next year, and they plan on us being completely gone without permanent bases by 2012. Whether we pull out of their country is not up to us, the current president or the incoming president. It is their country and they get to make the rules. Any ideas contrary to that indicate an imperialistic view in my opinion.

    There are in fact tens of thousands of people in this country that have over stayed their visas and are here illegally. Exactly like the folks from Saudi that attacked us on 9/11. This is not counting the folks from south of the border or other illegal immigrants that didn't initially enter the country with valid paperwork. We have made very little effort to round up the folks that aren't supposed to be here. So any claims of fighting them over there vs over here are simply silly.

    If you can't figure out who is not supposed to be here, find them and get rid of them, how can you possibly say that you have a secure country, or that the really bad ones are still over there someplace?

    Something needs to be done. How do we go about doing that without stepping on citizens toes, well that is up for debate. I am sure that the folks on this forum could develop a plan at least as good as the folks in Washington will ever come up with. Do I think that these troops pose a threat to my rights or liberties, no, that doesn't appear to be what their mission is. Do I think that there is a possiblity it could go to far, yes, but that fear is greater with the current administration based on its previous actions than it is with the incoming administration.
    Last edited by rocky; December 2nd, 2008 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Remove political mention
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array artz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,351
    " Refuse to be a victim, make sure there is a round chambered ! "

    Just call me a pessimistic optimist !

    U.S. Navy vet 1981-1992

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by mi2az View Post
    2 We could become isolationist
    Also known as "non-interventionism" this was the prevailing view of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

    The Constitution also says (Article 1 Section 8) that no funding for an army may exceed 2 years. Oops, I think we've surpassed that.

    Non-interventionist countries don't generally have a huge problem with terrorism.

    Now, if this was a plan to station only 20,000 troops in the entire US and to bring all the others home from everywhere else they are stationed, I would be in favor, but I'm sure that's not what we're talking about here.

    Is it worth the threat of a CBR attack in the US just so our wise government benefactors can continue to thumb their noses at the world?

    We should go the route of Switzerland. An assault rifle in every home and a strict non-interventionist policy. Not only have they not been attacked by Al Qaeda, they weren't even attacked by Hitler, despite their neighbor status. Then, not only would we not need the most destructive military ever imagined, we probably wouldn't even need all that many police.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  10. #40
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by agentmel View Post
    Also known as "non-interventionism" this was the prevailing view of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.
    That is why Jefferson sent the Marines to Africa to kill the muslims. Don't confuse 'non interventionism' with ignoring national security threats. Isolationism is like sticking your head in the sand or covering your ears while screaming, 'Nanananananana'.

    The Constitution also says (Article 1 Section 8) that no funding for an army may exceed 2 years. Oops, I think we've surpassed that.
    Nom we have not. Military funding ALWAYS comes to a new vote every two years. The spirit and letter of the Constitution mandates that no single funding spans more than two years. That is to allow for the vote of the people.

    Non-interventionist countries don't generally have a huge problem with terrorism.
    You mean like France just before they were conquered by Hitler? How did that work our for them? Right. The United States 'intervened.' How are the French doing with their current terrorist problem?


    We should go the route of Switzerland. An assault rifle in every home and a strict non-interventionist policy.
    You want to FORCE people to own guns? What would prescribe as a penalty for those who do not comply?

    The problem with the libertarian, isolationist policy is that they have no problem allowing our enemies to amass weapons, long range missiles, nuclear technology and chemical and biological weapons. And only AFTER millions of Americans are killed will they slap their heads and say, "Wow, I had no idea. Maybe we should retaliate?"

  11. #41
    Member Array ChiWeiSz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    242
    I'm not for isolationism, or for sticking our head in the sand, nor for our Fed Gov troops in our borders. Nope, the fed gov troops are for National defense - and our FBI, CIA, SS, National Guard, and local law enforcement are for interior uses.

    I say, train our local State National Guard for the necessary reactions - save our fed troops for taking care of the terrorists BEFORE they become local problems.
    Trying to leave as large a carbon footprint as possible.
    Shivering in the "heat"
    Innocent as doves, wise as serpents, armed like wolves.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Self-Defense, you have a pm so we can avoid thread hijacking.

    Non-interventionism is not sticking your head in the sand, its minding your own business. It is not permissible for those in government to do anything that it is not permissible for the rest of us. Defending ones self again the aggression of others is good. Making a pre-emptive strike in the face of a non-specific, not imminent threat is morally repugnant. Killing someone because they're a bad guy is vigilantism, no matter who you are. We should still have peaceful and economic relations with everyone. Rising standard of living is what really rights the wrongs in our world.

    Believing nothing bad could possibly come as a result of having federal troops "deployed" stateside is more akin to sticking your head in the sand than assuming that foreigners would likely not use WMD on us when we were minding our own business. Do we really trust the career politicians that much?

    Mel

    PS - If you're interested in what libertarian theory is really about...
    For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard
    -
    -
    -
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array swiftyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Madera, CA
    Posts
    2,488
    I wonder if they will wear brown shirts?
    John
    Assault is a behavior, not a device.

    "Don't never take no shortcuts." Patty Reed, Donner Party

    Lifetime NRA member

  14. #44
    Member Array ChiWeiSz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    242
    Most of my friends are saying so.
    Trying to leave as large a carbon footprint as possible.
    Shivering in the "heat"
    Innocent as doves, wise as serpents, armed like wolves.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    in all honesty i would prefer having the military respond to NBC attacks. the military is better trained and equipped to deal with such matters and besides it has been the militaries juristiction since we dropped the hiroshima bomb. the only thing this does is state who is tasked with imediate response. that said im not comfotable with the idea of having to act in a police role. i am not trained for such a mission and am not 100% capable in such a role.
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 1911-2011 Anybody celebrating by buying a 2011 special edition model?
    By Rotorblade in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2011, 02:19 AM
  2. Bad: Baltimore Plainclothes Cop Killed By Uniformed Cops
    By Sig 210 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 14th, 2011, 12:24 AM
  3. Pretty sure this uniformed Deputy was an imposter
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2008, 01:21 AM
  4. Father Finds 2 men in Daughters Room - 2 uniformed LEOs
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 11:11 AM
  5. Curiousity about non-uniformed off duty policies
    By Euclidean in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: December 24th, 2006, 11:03 PM

Search tags for this page

plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside u.s. by 2011

,

tampa bay safe streets task force

Click on a term to search for related topics.