Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011 - Page 5

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; rolyat63 , that's a good point, so let me clarify. "Preemptive" in self-defense means exactly as you describe it does, true; what's changed is the ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 103

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

  1. #61
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    rolyat63, that's a good point, so let me clarify. "Preemptive" in self-defense means exactly as you describe it does, true; what's changed is the way it has been used in reference to the conflict in Iraq. What I should have said, instead of "preemptive" attack, is attack before a problem/threat actually presents itself as such. Good catch.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    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.
    I was tracking all the way until you mentioned our moral right and duty. We have no moral right, whatsoever, to violate the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. We are a nation where innocence is assumed until proven otherwise (quite consistent with the Just War doctrine, actually). If a nation invites us into their borders to help them clean up their problem, excellent. If a nation does not, and the terrorist organization operating within that nation has not attacked us, we have no moral authority whatsoever to invade that country to take care of that problem.

    If a terrorist organization has attacked us, and is residing within a nation that does not permit us into their borders, then it comes down to whether or not the nation in question is actively working with us and attempting to, with our guidance or with our help, apprehend the criminals, or if the nation is passively supporting the terrorist organization by not permitting us into their nation and not doing anything themselves to take care of the problem. In the latter case, I don't think anyone can assume that the nation in question is anything but hostile and threatening, since they harbor those who have already committed crimes and are shielding them from those the crimes were committed against.

    My China example is still a valid one. Should I change the nation to Russia or would that be nostalgic? The point remains the same: if another nation were to do what is being advocated we do, but to us, we would be up in arms about it.

    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.
    I still have never, nor has anyone, suggested waiting for an attack. Please read my prior post's bolded portion. Also, bear in mind that Israel has a history of doing quite well at taking care of itself against potential nuclear threats (Iraq). They don't need us guarding them.

    Your concluding example also implies waiting to be attack, which I still contend is a stupid idea and I still have not, nor will, suggest or endorse. If we're talking about biological/nuclear and missile threats, than we need to start preparing accordingly for these threats (I realize we are, but they aren't getting nearly the attention they should be getting; that's another problem entirely though). Justice is not claiming X is the problem, but only half-heartily seeking a solution to X, and emphasizing naked aggression in the meanwhile.


    -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.


  2. #62
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I don't understand your distinction.

    If terrorists wheel out a missile delivery platform, and enable a missile with a nuclear warhead that can strike the United States are you saying we should simply allow that to happen because they haven't attacked us? What if they have detailed plans to deploy such a system? What if they are developing the technology to create that system?

    It certainly seems to me that you will not respond to the threat until hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead.

    I think you other country analogy does not hold. America does not condone, support, arm, or harbor those planning on attacking other nations.

    You still seem to be saying you won't wait for an attack yet you do not support preemptive action. How do you explain those contradictory views?

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    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.
    I believe your incorrect about linking this to the Wilson Plame fiasco. Better go back quite a few years to 1992.

    American Thinker: About that 500 tons of yellow cake...

    "The fact that the material was under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than a decade opens an entirely different line of questioning: Is the entire group of United Nations bureaucrats running the IAEA legally insane?

    These issues are somewhat separate from the Plame—Wilson—Rove dust up that's been roiling Washington recently, but nevertheless shed light on why Joe Wilson went to Niger in February of 2002 and why the bureaucratic tussle over those 16 words about the Iraqi—Niger yellow cake connection was so fierce.

    The story begins at the end of the first Gulf War when inspectors found a 500 ton cache of refined yellow cake uranium at Iraq's primary nuclear research facility in Al—Tuwaitha outside of Bagdhad. The cache was part of a huge inventory of nuclear materials discovered by UN inspectors that included low—level radioactive material of the type used for industrial and medical purposes as well as a quantity of highly enriched uranium suitable for bomb production"
    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

  4. #64
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I believe your incorrect about linking this to the Wilson Plame fiasco. Better go back quite a few years to 1992.

    American Thinker: About that 500 tons of yellow cake...

    "The fact that the material was under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than a decade opens an entirely different line of questioning: Is the entire group of United Nations bureaucrats running the IAEA legally insane?

    These issues are somewhat separate from the Plame—Wilson—Rove dust up that's been roiling Washington recently, but nevertheless shed light on why Joe Wilson went to Niger in February of 2002 and why the bureaucratic tussle over those 16 words about the Iraqi—Niger yellow cake connection was so fierce.

    The story begins at the end of the first Gulf War when inspectors found a 500 ton cache of refined yellow cake uranium at Iraq's primary nuclear research facility in Al—Tuwaitha outside of Bagdhad. The cache was part of a huge inventory of nuclear materials discovered by UN inspectors that included low—level radioactive material of the type used for industrial and medical purposes as well as a quantity of highly enriched uranium suitable for bomb production"
    Let me make sure I am clear on this issue. Iraq had 500 tones of uranium in 1992, they had it in 2002, the US claimed Iraq had WMD (presumably including nuclear materials) and the anti-war folks claimed we did not find the uranium and that Iraq was mischaracterized?

    Is this because or in spite of the IAEA () knew about it?

    By the way, why did you include Rove in the Plame/Wilson fiasco? Plame was to blame, Wilson a dupe, and Armitage was the guy who made it a national story. Rove had nothing to do with it.

  5. #65
    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
    I don't understand your distinction.

    If terrorists wheel out a missile delivery platform, and enable a missile with a nuclear warhead that can strike the United States are you saying we should simply allow that to happen because they haven't attacked us? What if they have detailed plans to deploy such a system? What if they are developing the technology to create that system?

    It certainly seems to me that you will not respond to the threat until hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead.
    No, and I think you're oversimplifying my position. I am not advocating we do nothing but sit and watch. If a terrorist group wheels out a missile with a nuke, we'd better be paying a lot closer attention to them than just watching and waiting. We have intelligence agencies - use them. We have budding missile defense programs - step them up. We have rapid deployment teams of all kinds - have them nearby and ready to stop the threat at any sign that they will use this device. Heck, for that matter sabotage and theft would be much preferable than taking of life, and would be much more reasonable measures than open military action.

    Police sharpshooters don't shoot immediately upon sight. They wait until they've given the go or until they actively see that if they don't take the shot right damn now things are going to get bad quick. Same principle. You switch to high gear, you get eyes on the target, etc. There is no contradiction here.

    I think you other country analogy does not hold. America does not condone, support, arm, or harbor those planning on attacking other nations.
    China could disagree, as could Russia, given that they both love Iraqi oil. The only detail is that it would be one of those nations taking actions against the US government (its military) instead of a terrorist group within the US. My analogy holds.


    -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. #66
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    No, and I think you're oversimplifying my position. I am not advocating we do nothing but sit and watch. If a terrorist group wheels out a missile with a nuke, we'd better be paying a lot closer attention to them than just watching and waiting. We have intelligence agencies - use them.
    We do use them. Again, what if they are currently developing the nuclear weapons and missiles? Let then finish and then try to stop them only AFTER they wheel out the delivery platform? Or perhaps they will simply put it in a suitcase and walk across or porous southern border.

    It is most definitely in the interest of national security to prevent that bomb from being created at all. It is no different killing them while they are building the bomb than after they wheel out the delivery platform.

    We have budding missile defense programs - step them up.
    I couldn't agree more. Of course, that is my line of work...Unfortunately, it is not enough. Once we are on the defensive, it is fighting from weakness. That is why it is imperative we use our reconnaissance capabilities to intercept enemy communiciations (even if it is in the United States) and infiltrate the enemy cells. And, yes, invade and kill the enemy before they kill us if that is the appropirate strategy. Like it was in Iraq and is right now in Iran.

    Police sharpshooters don't shoot immediately upon sight. They wait until they've given the go or until they actively see that if they don't take the shot right damn now things are going to get bad quick. Same principle. You switch to high gear, you get eyes on the target, etc. There is no contradiction here.
    Criminal behavior is very different than war. You analogy fails on that account.

  7. #67
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,120
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #68
    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
    We do use them. Again, what if they are currently developing the nuclear weapons and missiles? Let then finish and then try to stop them only AFTER they wheel out the delivery platform? Or perhaps they will simply put it in a suitcase and walk across or porous southern border.
    You also omitted my sabotage and theft suggestions, which are infinitely more viable in the situation you're referencing, and you're playing into very specific what-if's. We have more likely scenarios that present themselves as national security threats that we don't prepare for. Of those that we're speaking of now, solid recon and advanced anti-missile systems would probably be the only thing that would save us in the event one slipped by (which one will if we continue creating enemies, which we do).

    I have never heard of the just war theory creating enemies by its execution. We should take note of that.


    I couldn't agree more. Of course, that is my line of work...Unfortunately, it is not enough. Once we are on the defensive, it is fighting from weakness. That is why it is imperative we use our reconnaissance capabilities to intercept enemy communiciations (even if it is in the United States) and infiltrate the enemy cells.
    All of which I agree with. My problem is that what is being emphasized in this discussion is a much more aggressive approach than can be justified, morally or legally. Invade and kill the enemy if they are an enemy, not if they could become one. Iraq was not our enemy until we made them one (see above), and Iran can still be handled very effectively without any need for invasion or military campaign.

    Criminal behavior is very different than war. You analogy fails on that account.
    Acts of terrorism are criminal. Terrorists are criminals with a political overtone. Treat them accordingly.


    -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.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Selfdefense,

    I didn't include anyone in anything. All of that is a quote from the article that I posted the link to. You might want to check out the article.
    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

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    So SelfDefense, if I follow your logic correctly it is our right to strike against any nation or any group that that actively plans to attack the United States. And we should attack any nation we feel is hostile to us and is developing a WMD capability. And we would be justified in instituting a regime change in any nation that finances, arms, shelters, or otherwise materially supports those that would attack the United States. Is that correct?

    If that is true, and rights are God given, and therefore universal, Cuba would have been justified in attacking the United States and instituting a regime change in our country in order to prevent the Bay of Pigs invasion. And Nicaragua would have likewise been justified in attacking the United States and instituting a regime change over our training, funding and support of the Contras. Saddam Hussein would have been justified in launching a preemptive strike against us while we were making preparations for either of the Gulf Wars.

    Or is there some reason those other countries don't have the right to protect themselves and their interests as we do to protect ours?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Will they wear brown shirts?
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array rolyat63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    ...
    All of which I agree with. My problem is that what is being emphasized in this discussion is a much more aggressive approach than can be justified, morally or legally. Invade and kill the enemy if they are an enemy, not if they could become one. Iraq was not our enemy until we made them one (see above), and Iran can still be handled very effectively without any need for invasion or military campaign.
    -B
    So, is Iran our enemy? I guess so since they need to be handled. What IS your proposal for effectively handling Iran who has stated that one of our allies should be blown off the face of the planet (he does not care for the US either) and are in the process of developing the means. They have the will and are working on the means. Once that is complete it's too late as the flight time from Iran to Israel is just minutes.

    Conversely, ole' Hugo Chavez the wind bag hates us too. But without the help of another force they are to far away from the means.
    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. #73
    Senior Member Array RemMod597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Snohomish County, WA
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have never seen a more frightened and paranoid group of people in my life. The government is not out to get you. They are our representatives that we vote to office to perform a job guided by the Constitution.

    Article 4 Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    It is absolutely appropriate that we use everything in our power to thwart and repel an enemy invasion AND domestic violence.

    I understand that Obama does not like parts of the Constitution. It appears that some here are in lock step with that mindset.
    I don't trust our federal government to obey and follow the Constitution. Especially the president-elect. The "people" voted in a man with no background. That alone is terrifying. The Jews in pre-Nazi Europe could have done better being more "frightened and paranoid".

  14. #74
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by rolyat63 View Post
    So, is Iran our enemy? I guess so since they need to be handled. What IS your proposal for effectively handling Iran who has stated that one of our allies should be blown off the face of the planet (he does not care for the US either) and are in the process of developing the means. They have the will and are working on the means. Once that is complete it's too late as the flight time from Iran to Israel is just minutes.
    Several assumptions are made. The first, Israel needs us to protect them - this is patently false. Pound for pound, Israel's military is one of the best ever, and they have a lot of modern regional experience to draw on from prior conflicts. The second assumption is that a threat to an American ally warrants American action. Nevermind whether or not we're asked for help, or can effectively help, or whether it's just and lawful to help. The third assumption is that we have the authority to deny to others what we ourselves possess. That's the same argument for gun control (only the military and police), remember?

    All of that aside, it would be very easy for the Iranian nuclear program to be sabotaged. Iran has made no threats toward us because they know we'd spank them for it. Iran has made threats toward Israel but has never once done anything more than talk, because they know they'd get spanked for it. Iran is not our enemy. They might eventually become one, but they aren't right now. My solution remains the same: watch, learn, prepare ourselves, and the second the word "go" passes their lips we crush their ability to threaten us. Note I said "us", not "Israel". They don't need our help (but are happy to take our money).

    Conversely, ole' Hugo Chavez the wind bag hates us too. But without the help of another force they are to far away from the means.
    Hugo Chavez is an idiot and no danger to us (this is the guy who ordered AKs and ammo, so much that you would get a few rounds per rifle). As much as he talks, he, like Pervez Musharraf, has backed down from his earlier claims that he'd "combat the West" and is content with running his nation and talking crap. Chavez and Venezuela are examples of a nation who might not like us, but who pose no threat to us and we ignore them. We need to be more consistent in that policy.


    -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. #75
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Several assumptions are made. The first, Israel needs us to protect them - this is patently false. Pound for pound, Israel's military is one of the best ever, and they have a lot of modern regional experience to draw on from prior conflicts.
    I'm certain you realize that Israel relies on our weapons to help keep them prepared. Just recently, we have provided Israel the new technology X band radar,so they can get a few minutes more warning for a missile launch from Iran.

    Iran is not our enemy.
    Iran is absolutely an enemy of the United States. They are killing Americans in Iraq, which has been definitively proven. We should already have confronted them militarily. Waiting for them to develop nuclear weapons will limit our options.

    Hugo Chavez is an idiot and no danger to us (this is the guy who ordered AKs and ammo, so much that you would get a few rounds per rifle).
    This is the Obama rhetoric that Iraq and North Korea are tiny countries and therefore they pose no threat. That is simply a naive view. Currently, they are dealing with Putin and Castro and if they begin to develop or acquire long range missiles and nuclear technology then we need to immediately take action.

    We cannot wait until we are attacked OR wait until the development of these weapons nears completion to take action.

    It may seem dificult to believe but we have enemies throughout the world. We cannot ignore threats or potential threats. We need to act and act aggressively.

Page 5 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.