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; Originally Posted by agentmel Non-interventionism is not sticking your head in the sand, its minding your own business. It is not permissible for those in ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 103

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

  1. #46
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by agentmel View Post
    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.
    Peace is not absence of conflict. Killing someone because they will most certainly kill you is not only moral but it is just and right.

    Waiting until your countrymen are annihilated before responding is not only foolhardy but irresponsible.

    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 use WMD on us when we were minding our own business.
    Sure, bad COULD happen, but there is no reason to believe it would. The military AND the government IS ON OUR SIDE.
    We are the government. We are the military.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array ChiWeiSz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    242
    Yes, WE are the government, and WE are the military - and at least Constitutionally, legally, currently - the government is on our side.

    Having said that...

    The idea of having armed military stationed within our borders, to be deployed within our borders - albeit, to defend our civilians from the BG's - they could be deployed for other reasons as well.

    Orwellian? Yep. Slightly paranoid? Somewhat. But it sure sets a bad precedent, and gets things all lined up for the military to be used in some sort of "police" type action should the defining of what constitutes a terrorist cell, become closely associated with your local gun club.

    Again, I reiterate. We already have State troops, the local National Guard units. Train and equip them to work within the borders of their own respective states. If we don't think that will work, then raise and train local militia.
    Trying to leave as large a carbon footprint as possible.
    Shivering in the "heat"
    Innocent as doves, wise as serpents, armed like wolves.

  4. #48
    B52
    B52 is offline
    Senior Member Array B52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    684
    +1 Self Defense, "Peace is not absence of conflict. Killing someone because they will most certainly kill you is not only moral but it is just and right.

    Waiting until your countrymen are annihilated before responding is not only foolhardy but irresponsible".

  5. #49
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Peace is not absence of conflict. Killing someone because they will most certainly kill you is not only moral but it is just and right.

    Waiting until your countrymen are annihilated before responding is not only foolhardy but irresponsible.
    That's not what he's saying. Self-defense doesn't require you wait until you're struck; it just requires you don't strike until you're sure the threat against you is legitimate and imminent. To attack someone who might become a threat to us is not only immoral and naked aggression, but a guaranteed way to create threats to us out of what was only hostility.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    it just requires you don't strike until you're sure the threat against you is legitimate and imminent.
    Are we not sure that there is a legitimate, immediate threat against us and our national interests?

    Agent Mel, this isn't the 1780s. The US is not, and never again will be, self-sufficient. We CANNOT survive without extensive involvement in the economies (and, by extention, the politics) of other nations - never mind the military/terrorist threat that many of them now pose, and will certainly continue to pose (in increasingly greater levels) if we simply "bug out" and let them do whatever they want.

    We are the dominant economic, political, and military power on the planet. Our business is EVERYBODY's business, like it or not. Being involved in other countries politically, economically, and (if necessary) militarily is absolutely, positively minding our own business.

    Complete non-intervention is guaranteed destruction. Switzerland doesn't apply - nobody cares about them in the global scheme. We are much too big to be granted that level of inconsequence.
    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.

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Wow heated discussion. Let the good times roll!

    My take: It seems we spend enough money on the military (and Defense Department in general) that I am ok with getting some domestic return. The Federal responses to recent events (9/11, Katrina, wildfires...) have been abysmal at best, can't we stand some improvement? I fully expect there to be future events that need responding too and am happy to see the additional resources being devoted to it.

    Now, from a legal/constitutional framework, the concept of a standing army operating within the US is not a good one. I am, however, ok with a temporary disaster response force. Key words being "temporary" and "disaster response"

    just my .02 cents

  8. #52
    Member Array ChiWeiSz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    242
    Temporary, maybe okay. However, once we open Pandora's box - what's next?
    Trying to leave as large a carbon footprint as possible.
    Shivering in the "heat"
    Innocent as doves, wise as serpents, armed like wolves.

  9. #53
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Are we not sure that there is a legitimate, immediate threat against us and our national interests?
    There is a difference between nations/peoples hostile to us and nations/peoples threatening harm to us. That distinction is lost on many. The difference is attacking a group who could do us harm and attacking a group who intends and has the means to do us harm; a nation that merely despises us or wants to do us harm but has no means or shows no active (or covert) attempt to do us harm is not our enemy. There is no legal or moral justification for naked aggression.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,260
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    Wow heated discussion. Let the good times roll!

    My take: It seems we spend enough money on the military (and Defense Department in general) that I am ok with getting some domestic return. The Federal responses to recent events (9/11, Katrina, wildfires...) have been abysmal at best, can't we stand some improvement? I fully expect there to be future events that need responding too and am happy to see the additional resources being devoted to it.

    Now, from a legal/constitutional framework, the concept of a standing army operating within the US is not a good one. I am, however, ok with a temporary disaster response force. Key words being "temporary" and "disaster response"

    just my .02 cents
    Yeah but the real issue, is who gets to decide what equals "temporary" and "disaster response"...
    Who says they can't claim our current economic disaster is not worthy of disaster response after say...a few more walmart tramplings or runs on the stores(ie looting when it gets worse).
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    There is a difference between nations/peoples hostile to us and nations/peoples threatening harm to us. That distinction is lost on many. The difference is attacking a group who could do us harm and attacking a group who intends and has the means to do us harm; a nation that merely despises us or wants to do us harm but has no means or shows no active (or covert) attempt to do us harm is not our enemy. There is no legal or moral justification for naked aggression.
    -B
    I was thinking along several lines here... First are the terrorists. These groups are indisputably willing and able to cause us harm. They have to live somewhere - do we allow them free reign to plan, arm, train, and stage their attacks just because they do it in another country?

    Second are the hostile nations. Several have expressed their intent to do us harm, though this harm may be economic rather than military, it is harm none the less (as exemplified by the crisis we are in now, largely created without foreign influence). There are nations that have expressed the intent to invade/destroy our allies. There are nations who are fundamentally at odds with the American way of life that are developing (or have already developed) nuclear weapons. Waiting until after they have used them against us "just to be sure" seems like the worst among poor choices.

    A country does not have to actively invade the US to do us major harm. That is like saying we must wait to be shot before we can draw our own weapon and fire back. We constantly preach situational awareness and pro-active defence for ourselves - why does this not carry over to our nation?
    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.

  12. #56
    Senior Member Array rolyat63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiWeiSz View Post
    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.
    There are other Federal LEAs but the CIA don't get to play in our backyard.
    rolyat63
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor

    A gun in the hand is a million times more valuable than a cop on the phone!

    FL Concealed Weapon or Firearm Program

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    And it just keeps getting worse.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  14. #58
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    OPFOR

    On terrorist groups: remember we have zero authority to tell others what they may or may not do in another country. If a terrorist organization has not attacked us, then we have no legal or moral authority to do a damn thing about them unless someone else asks us to and We The People agree that it ought to be done. Would you like China parking some troops here because we crazy Americans, who hold little love for China, might do something to harm them since we have both poor regard for them and a means to do them harm? After all, many extremists in America have sincerely suggested open war with China. Would that be just? Of course not. Attack those who are about to, or who already have, attacked us. Self-defense is justified. "Preemptive attacks" are not.

    Treat hostile nations exactly the same as terrorist groups. If they have done something to us, act accordingly. If they're about to do something to us, and we can verify this, act accordingly. If they might one day do something, leave them the hell alone because they're guilty of no crime against us. If a nation wants to wage an economic war with the United States, they'll lose. The single greatest danger to the United States economy is the US government's inability to manage money and the US voters not voting in people who will do something about it.

    Again, nobody is saying we must wait to be attacked before we act. If a criminal breaks into your home and tries to attack you, and you pull a gun and shoot them before they can actually harm you, you have still acted in just self-defense. That principle still applies at the larger scale. If a country really wants to have a throwdown with the US, then prepare our nation to go to war and make that nation well aware that if it goes through with its plans there will be Hell to pay. The moment credible intel says "yeah, they're going through with it", we do something about it.

    Jus ad bellum.

    Our national defense is not compromised by doing this. Our national defense is compromised when we engage in naked aggression and turn what wasn't an enemy before into what is an enemy now. We in America have a horrible tendency to overlook the potential consequences for our actions, a problem most notable when demonstrated by the entities in government.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  15. #59
    Senior Member Array rolyat63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    OPFOR

    ... "Preemptive attacks" are not. ...

    ... nobody is saying we must wait to be attacked before we act. ....-B
    Seems contradictory. Self Defense is preemptive. very definition of preemptive.

    "2. taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival."

    "The right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right, and in all cases, with no exceptions, justifies all uses of violence stemming from this right, regardless whether in defense of the person or property. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
    rolyat63
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor

    A gun in the hand is a million times more valuable than a cop on the phone!

    FL Concealed Weapon or Firearm Program

  16. #60
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    On terrorist groups: remember we have zero authority to tell others what they may or may not do in another country. If a terrorist organization has not attacked us, then we have no legal or moral authority to do a damn thing about them unless someone else asks us to and We The People agree that it ought to be done.
    I'm sure OPFOR will chime in, as you addressed it directly to him, but I will throw in my two cents.

    Terrorists organizations are constantly planning to attack us. They are being supported by particular countries. That poses a national security threat. It is not that they simply live in these countries. The only way they can operate and aquire their weapons, training, and supplies is though a complicit government. We have every moral right, in fact duty, to eliminate those threats. President Bush clearly articulated that message when he included nations that harbor terrorists in his many statements concerning America's policy.

    Perhaps Obama will not be as active in facing our enemies. Many will cheer, including Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, Venezuela...

    Would you like China parking some troops here because we crazy Americans, who hold little love for China, might do something to harm them since we have both poor regard for them and a means to do them harm? After all, many extremists in America have sincerely suggested open war with China.
    The difference is that the US government does not support or condone those planning on attacking China (as if anyone is actually doing that.)

    Treat hostile nations exactly the same as terrorist groups. If they have done something to us, act accordingly. If they're about to do something to us, and we can verify this, act accordingly.
    That is exactly the point. Through our intelligence organizations we KNOW what the rogue nations and terrorists grops are doing. In fact, it is reported we warned India about impending attacks in Mumbai weeks before the attack. And places like Iraq posed a severe threat to our nation and allies. Since the liberal media does not report the news, many are unawware that we recovered 500 tons of yellowcake uranium in Iraq. Yes, the same yellowcake that was at the heart of the Wilson/Plame fiasco. It was shipped to Canada.

    Are you trying to say we wouldn't be justified in eliminating Iran's nuclear capability before send a warhead into Israel? Waiting for an attack is extremely poor strategy.

    Again, nobody is saying we must wait to be attacked before we act. If a criminal breaks into your home and tries to attack you, and you pull a gun and shoot them before they can actually harm you, you have still acted in just self-defense. That principle still applies at the larger scale.
    No, it doesn't. Long range missiles tipped with biological/bhemical/nuclear weapons can be initiated from almost anywhere. Sure, if we were trying to defend against terrorists walking up on the beach we could dispose of them as you suggest. But that is not how the real world works. We must preemptively and proactively destroy this evil BEFORE we are attacked. Inaction is a certain recipe for a disaster that will make 9/11 seem absolutely minimal.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

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, 01:19 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 13th, 2011, 11:24 PM
  3. Pretty sure this uniformed Deputy was an imposter
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2008, 12:21 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, 10:11 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, 10:03 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.