Has Everyone Gone Nuts?

November 02, 2008

A Huge Civilian Security Force - For What Purpose?

Who said the following?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

A. A socialist leader to suppress domestic opposition

B. A U.S. Presidential Candidate

C. Both

D. You still here? You better run to vote.

* * * * *

Answer:

Why do we need an internal army that we haven't needed before? Who are these agents of suppression supposed to protect--the public or the government? Are there any individual rights that bother Democrats?

I don't know about you, but this worries me. If Obama admits to wanting this internal military force, what is he not telling us? It's not hard to imagine. This is change...the wrong kind.

Posted by Woody

Posted at 10:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I heard that some socialist countries have non-military aka civilian security forces which they call the Federal Bureau of Investiagtion (FBI), National Security Administration (NSA) and office of Homeland Security very scary stuff in those socialist/communist countries !!!!

Posted by: frank at Sunday, November 02 2008 01:16 PM (Rf86u)

Frank, in our country, those agencies that you listed, along with other national and local policing agencies, serve different and useful functions that cover everything.

Why do we need another military force "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our existing military? Why can't Obama use our current forces and set new goals for them rather than building a new and unexplained bureaucracy, which may have jurisdictional conflicts with those other agencies?

What justification can he or you possibly offer us?

One thing that you can count on--Obama will gut our existing military. That's what you left-wingers have been wanting for decades.

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, November 02 2008 01:28 PM (Eb/8J)

3 You know, it seems suspicious that Obama will not have the respect of our military as its Commander-in-Chief, especially after he withdraws them from Iraq and makes them losers, so he wants to build a military that is loyal to him personally rather than loyal to their country.

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, November 02 2008 01:41 PM (Eb/8J)

4 Is he not talking about the National Guard here? I think returning the National Guard back to its pre Gulf war mission with maybe an added emphasis on Homeland Security would a good thing.

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Monday, November 03 2008 09:56 AM (dlFaD)

5 Ah, two seconds of Googling clarifies all. This was part of Obama's "national service" speech and he's not even talking about an armed security force at all but rather bigger version of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps programs.

Obama promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.

So there's your powerful, strong, well-funded civillian "security" group.

Oddly enough, John McCain also supports a national service program. Maybe not one that is military size in scope but likely nothing all that different from what Obama envisions.

Source:

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Monday, November 03 2008 10:07 AM (dlFaD)

6 Oh, I see. I never thought of AmeriCorp has a possibility to further our national security objectives. What is this group doing to do after our forces are yanked back from Iraq? I don't know, moose. I think this is more than a feel-good, volunteer program.

Posted by: Woody at Monday, November 03 2008 10:39 AM (Eb/8J)

7 I never thought of AmeriCorp has a possibility to further our national security objectives.

It doesn't surprise me that you can't see how a successful AmeriCorp or Peace Corp program enhances security at home. Granted, it only does that indirectly but slow and indirect methods may well turn out to be the best in the long term.

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Monday, November 03 2008 10:58 AM (dlFaD)

8 very funny! Thanks for sharing!Don’t forget the things you once you owned. Treasure thethings youcan’t get. Don't give up the things that belong to you and keep thoselost things in memory

Posted by: shop at Sunday, June 19 2011 02:40 AM (Nl3Q0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment