Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bobola
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Would it be fair to say that mortgage brokers writing liar loans en masse was ‘conspiracy’ to ‘deprived’ the ‘privilege’ of home ownership to a ‘class of people’..??

    From the insurrection act of 1807;

    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

    (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

    (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • blazespinnaker
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    The government can barely mobilize troops against a nation that the world is semi convinced is building nuclear bombs.

    The fact is, the US has the second amendment. Until that gets repealed or is in danger of being repealed, there really is nothing the US can do against its own people.

    Leave a comment:


  • flintlock
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    in his defense... not saying that the usa mil is 'bloated' as in more personnel than the mission demands... but the mission is ridiculous.
    Thanks Metalman, that is exactly what I meant.

    The size Armed forces actually required to defend the USA is a fraction of what we have now. The excess is what we use to project power over the entire world, usually at the behest of GLOBAL corporations and smilar interests, which often are not in our country's best interest.

    Of course the US military is being asked to do too much and is spread to thin for the mission. This thread was about troop levels AT HOME.


    Eisenhower originally wanted to call it the " Military Industrial CORPORATE complex" in his speech, but was convinced not to use "corporate" in the term.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1CDmn8q0M

    rj1, despite your kneejerk personal insult, you might be surprised to know I'm actually very well versed on military issues, not only now, but throughout history. Its a lifelong hobby of mine. Not something I get from the mainstream media or my local party meetings. :rolleyes: Right now I'm on my third book about the War in Chechnya. I'm sure you know all about that conflict, right? When I'm through with that, I have the history of the Balkans sitting on my bedside table.

    More from Chalmers Johnson

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPr_T...eature=related
    Last edited by flintlock; 08-17-09, 09:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • metalman
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
    Well you showcased your intelligence.

    How can a military be bloated when our presidents tell them to do more and more while decreasing their manpower to do so? G.H.W. Bush cut it down to the bone, Clinton cut into the bone while telling them to do more and more "peacekeeping" do-gooder bullsh*t, and then G.W. Bush hired a dumbass Secretary of Defense that thought all war was was just having a satellite-guided missile hit a building as if it was some f*cking video game. And that point of view was how a successful overthrow of a horrible dictator got turned into a damn quagmire, not enough troops!

    If the majority of posters on this thread wish to actually become educated about the U.S. military, there are a lot of blogs out there that are military versions of iTulip.
    in his defense... not saying that the usa mil is 'bloated' as in more personnel than the mission demands... but the mission is ridiculous.
    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghent12
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
    Well you showcased your intelligence.

    How can a military be bloated when our presidents tell them to do more and more while decreasing their manpower to do so? G.H.W. Bush cut it down to the bone, Clinton cut into the bone while telling them to do more and more "peacekeeping" do-gooder bullsh*t, and then G.W. Bush hired a dumbass Secretary of Defense that thought all war was was just having a satellite-guided missile hit a building as if it was some f*cking video game.

    If the majority of posters on this thread wish to actually become educated about the U.S. military, there are a lot of blogs out there that are military versions of iTulip.
    Indeed. Navy strategic stuff can be found at Information Dissemination, for instance.

    Leave a comment:


  • rj1
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by flintlock View Post
    We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:
    Well you showcased your intelligence.

    How can a military be bloated when our presidents tell them to do more and more while decreasing their manpower to do so? G.H.W. Bush cut it down to the bone, Clinton cut into the bone while telling them to do more and more "peacekeeping" do-gooder bullsh*t, and then G.W. Bush hired a dumbass Secretary of Defense that thought all war was was just having a satellite-guided missile hit a building as if it was some f*cking video game. And that point of view was how a successful overthrow of a horrible dictator got turned into a damn quagmire, not enough troops!

    If the majority of posters on this thread wish to actually become educated about the U.S. military, there are a lot of blogs out there that are military versions of iTulip.
    Last edited by rj1; 08-16-09, 08:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • metalman
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by Quincy K View Post
    I would have to disagree. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

    Free money for everyone.
    Government and Service Jobs for All!

    The latest payroll employment numbers came out today and they are not pretty. Unemployment has picked up over the past seven months. As usual, before we dig deeper into the Labor Department's numbers to see where jobs were lost and gained, first we unfurl the United Banana Republic of America (UBRA) flag because, once again, the big winner in job growth is in government.
    Jobless rate rises to 4-year high of 5.7 percent
    Friday August 1, 1:29 pm ET
    By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

    Jobless rate rises to 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's unemployment rate climbed to a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs, dashing the hopes of an influx of young people looking for summer work.Payroll cuts weren't as deep as the 72,000 predicted by economists, however. And, job losses for both May and June were smaller than previously reported.
    AntiSpin: First, the bad news: payroll employment is down for the seventh straight month. Readers are reminded that unemployment is a lagging economic indicator; to see unemployment rising at this juncture of a recession generally means it's going to get a lot worse. As we explained in Housing Bubble Correction Update: Here comes the jobs crash (Part I), we are likely only half way through a recession process that started Q4 2007.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quincy K
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by LargoWinch View Post
    At one point does China cares enough to pull the plug on NATO?

    If I knew the answer to that question I wouldn't be spending so much time here at iTulip.

    Looks like that ex-UAW guy is at it again

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkId_c86jGs

    Check out the 1:10 mark of the video. He has to edit it as the radio antenna apparantly hits him as he is not looking.

    This guy is a fuc_ing moron.

    Leave a comment:


  • LargoWinch
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by Quincy K View Post
    I would have to disagree. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

    Free money for everyone.
    At one point does China cares enough to pull the plug on NATO?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quincy K
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by flintlock View Post
    We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:
    I would have to disagree regarding the bloated military. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

    Free money for everyone.
    Last edited by Quincy K; 08-16-09, 06:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • flintlock
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:

    Leave a comment:


  • ThePythonicCow
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by Quincy K View Post
    Why not? it's probably cheaper to keep them here than anywhere else in the world.
    This is not about stationing troops here because the barracks are cheaper; this is about using them here for domestic purposes.

    Please see the other replies above. Ghent12 had what seems to be the same immediate reaction you did, before dummas and myself rebutted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quincy K
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by Mega View Post
    Why not? it's probably cheaper to keep them here than anywhere else in the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • dummass
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
    I did stop reading rather quickly. After "raising the prospect" of violating Posse Comitatus, to be exact. Now, after reading the entire article, I realize that my initial impulse was correct. It's a speculative article.

    On face, yes, if you fully buy into the tin foil hype, this is scary legislation. If, however, you take a step back and look at it from the other side of the glass, you realize that it is basically just an effort at switching power to a more streamlined fashion. Frankly, I would trust the leadership of the military during a Katrina-type event more than the mess that happened.

    There's no such thing as a U.S. Constitution with the power to stop such things anymore, and until people in power start to relinquish their power to the mandates of the Constitution, such illegal usurping of power will continue to happen. I would, however, very much doubt the capacity of this power grab being used in the manner feared by the FEMA campers.
    The majority of the population will accept and support tyranny til the very last day.... Then they will claim ignorance.

    Now excuse me, I need to get back to the garage to weld up the supports for the bunker I'm building.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghent12
    replied
    Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

    Originally posted by dummass View Post


    I don't think Ghent12 read the article.
    I did stop reading rather quickly. After "raising the prospect" of violating Posse Comitatus, to be exact. Now, after reading the entire article, I realize that my initial impulse was correct. It's a speculative article.

    On face, yes, if you fully buy into the tin foil hype, this is scary legislation. If, however, you take a step back and look at it from the other side of the glass, you realize that it is basically just an effort at switching power to a more streamlined fashion. Frankly, I would trust the leadership of the military during a Katrina-type event more than the mess that happened.

    There's no such thing as a U.S. Constitution with the power to stop such things anymore, and until people in power start to relinquish their power to the mandates of the Constitution, such illegal usurping of power will continue to happen. I would, however, very much doubt the capacity of this power grab being used in the manner feared by the FEMA campers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X