20,000 Soldiers to be deployed in USA by 2011

[Placid Casual]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html

To prevent terrorism, yeah right.

I'm thinking something else must be on the cards here. Perhaps they're finally going to round up your rifles and scratch out the 2nd and 3rd amendments.

Who knows, seems a strange move though considering the Army is constantly on about troop shortages in the middle east.

[tzb]

Who knows, seems a strange move though considering the Army is constantly on about troop shortages in the middle east.
Well Obama has pledged to pull out of Iraq "by the end of 2011", so it's not that odd.

[Dave]

Well Obama has pledged to pull out of Iraq "by the end of 2011", so it's not that odd.

Go on, do the rest of his post...

[maradona]

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

[tzb]

I haven't the bile tonight. Apologies!

[Dave]

I haven't the bile tonight. Apologies!

Well I can't do it, I'm retired!

[Placid Casual]

Well Obama has pledged to pull out of Iraq "by the end of 2011", so it's not that odd.

We're not talking about soldiers coming back to American soil because their actions abroad have ended. We're talking about American soldiers being deployed on American soil to assist with domestic security, something which has already started now.


Personally, I think it'd disgusting enough to see police on the streets with sub machine guns. Hell, even tasers are a step too far in my opinion as they still kill people.
To have soldiers though, working with police in the name of "domestic security". I find that quite frightening, or at least I certainly would if I were an American citizen.

I think it's odd in that to my knowledge it hasn't happened before, certainly not in such large numbers at least.

[Son of Stopped]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html

To prevent terrorism, yeah right.

I'm thinking something else must be on the cards here. Perhaps they're finally going to round up your rifles and scratch out the 2nd and 3rd amendments.

Who knows, seems a strange move though considering the Army is constantly on about troop shortages in the middle east.

Imagine how useless the British army would be on our streets?

Ha ha ha!

(So they'll probably use European armies instead:p)

[Dave]

to my knowledge it hasn't happened before, certainly not in such large numbers at least.

Isn't that like one soldier to every 1500 citizens? Not really much when you look at it that way.

[Placid Casual]

Imagine how useless the British army would be on our streets?

Ha ha ha!

(So they'll probably use European armies instead:p)

I live near an Army base, it's bad enough that they're allowed out drinking on weekends.
To think such people might be put in a position of power over their own citizens is a worrying thought.

It's bad enough seeing how police have started to treat certain groups like protesters/other people using their free speech.

To put trained killers in their place, who are generally much stronger and probably not as empathetic with their issues... (particularly those protesting against war/big brother state etc)

Well, it's not good is it.

[Son of Stopped]

Of course all services are getting funding cut left, right and centre. so if "martial law" (which reading between the lines...) tried to happen here it would probably implode and blow up in their faces.

[Placid Casual]

Isn't that like one soldier to every 1500 citizens? Not really much when you look at it that way.


You've got to be kidding me right?

Ratios are insignificant because it's not a case of US Civilian Population vs US Army

I'd imagine the majority of Americans won't put themselves in harms way, by participating in protests, trying to defend their constitutional rights or any other "terrorist" activities where state authority might be questioned.

Say for instance they did decide to make guns illegal, it wouldn't matter if US Soldiers were outnumbered 50,000 to 1.

The majority of people will be convinced that it's for their own good, and that not handing over their guns is un-patriotic etc.

Those that do oppose the movement still won't have any real hope as it'd be un-coordinated civilians against one of the most efficiently coordinated and trained forces in the world.

Of course I'm just giving an example here, I don't know if there's any plans to strip the American people of their weapons or not. Just saying that the fact that the ratios between soldiers and civilians is completely irrelevant. Soldiers shouldn't be used for domestic "security" purposes, there are other organisations in place for that.


I find is suspicious, concerning at the least.

But I'm that way inclined, maybe it really is to keep those dangerous pesky Al Qaeda terrorists at bay, wouldn't want them to detonate a nuclear weapon now would we.

[Dave]

You've got to be kidding me right?



Nah, I just think you're a moron and I can't be bothered wasting meaningful arguments on you.

[Placid Casual]

Nah, I just think you're a moron and I can't be bothered wasting meaningful arguments on you.

Well that's me crying myself to sleep tonight.

[Dave]

Well that's me crying myself to sleep tonight.

Alright, I'm sorry, you did write a nice big argument that I totally ignored, although I'd like to add that I do think you're working with a fundamental misunderstanding of the American psyche.

[Placid Casual]

Alright, I'm sorry, you did write a nice big argument that I totally ignored, although I'd like to add that I do think you're working with a fundamental misunderstanding of the American psyche.

It's open discussion more than argument, and I could be. I've not met a great deal of American people, and I've never been to the USA.

I don't think that's going to change any time soon either, with the record checks, retinal scans and palm prints before you're even allowed to leave the airport.

But yeah, my judgements on how the people will respond may be incorrect - but that's not really the point of this discussion.

I was more interested in hearing what people have to think about such a deployment, particularly as during the election people kept saying that Obama was going to face a massive international crisis upon taking office and I think they were hinting at something more than just the economic crisis.

It just seems like quite a significant move, I read about it earlier this week and figured it was worth bringing up here.

I couldn't care less that you think I am a moron for having an opinion on the matter though so no apology needed there.

I was more bothered that you felt unable to respond to my comment in a proper manner. It's fine if you disagree with anything I suggest, but obviously I'd rather you take what I have to say to pieces and make me look like a moron rather than just name call and say you can't be bothered to waste meaningless arguments on me. Childish innit.

[Dave]

I couldn't care less that you think I am a moron for having an opinion on the matter though so no apology needed there.

I was more bothered that you felt unable to respond to my comment in a proper manner. It's fine if you disagree with anything I suggest, but obviously I'd rather you take what I have to say to pieces and make me look like a moron rather than just name call and say you can't be bothered to waste meaningless arguments on me. Childish innit.

Hm, well I don't think you're a moron for having an opinion on this matter. I think you're a moron from seeing the opinions you've posted on several other matters, too.
The thing is, I would sit and take everything you've said to pieces, but I've seen the way you've argued in the past and frankly there's no point in me doing so because firstly you'd fail to listen and secondly you'd probably manage to include the word 'racist' as well.

[Placid Casual]

Hm, well I don't think you're a moron for having an opinion on this matter. I think you're a moron from seeing the opinions you've posted on several other matters, too.
The thing is, I would sit and take everything you've said to pieces, but I've seen the way you've argued in the past and frankly there's no point in me doing so because firstly you'd fail to listen and secondly you'd probably manage to include the word 'racist' as well.

Maybe it's just me then, but I generally give everyone a clean slate from topic to topic.

If someone has posted garbage again and again, but then makes a point that I agree with or just simply discusses something I have an interest in, then I'm not going to reply and go "you're an idiot" and not bother responding to what they've said. That's childish behaviour.

Sounds to me like you need to grow up a bit and maybe act your age. If you have no interest in responding properly to what I have to say, because you've already decided you won't like my response then don't talk to me at all.

Clearly you're only interested in dishing out personal abuse as some kind of ego boost. If you think it makes you look smart or clever then you're wrong.

"Oh I could do this, or that but my divine intellect would be wasted on a moron like you..."

It's just arrogant, either reply properly and explain why you think that I am a moron based on what is relevant/currently being discussed, or don't bother at all.

[Dave]

Maybe it's just me then, but I generally give everyone a clean slate from topic to topic.

If someone has posted garbage again and again, but then makes a point that I agree with or just simply discusses something I have an interest in, then I'm not going to reply and go "you're an idiot" and not bother responding to what they've said. That's childish behaviour.

Sounds to me like you need to grow up a bit and maybe act your age. If you have no interest in responding properly to what I have to say, because you've already decided you won't like my response then don't talk to me at all.

Clearly you're only interested in dishing out personal abuse as some kind of ego boost. If you think it makes you look smart or clever then you're wrong.

"Oh I could do this, or that but my divine intellect would be wasted on a moron like you..."

It's just arrogant, either reply properly and explain why you think that I am a moron based on what is relevant/currently being discussed, or don't bother at all.

Aside from the massive assumptions on my thought processes that you persist on making, I'm also concerned that you are derailing your own thread.

[Matt_o_Mac]

So why are the USA doing this P/C?

[Placid Casual]

So why are the USA doing this P/C?

I don't know, maybe with the recession getting worse and unemployment becoming move of a problem they're getting ready for civil unrest.

It could be just an expansion of the growing police state over there, though the police seem well equipped and trained not to need any extra military support.

Perhaps when they finally begin large scale military operations in Iran they expect people to get sick of it back home and protest on a bigger scale than before.
(Israel are just waiting for the green light it would seem; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702421218&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)


There's a ton of reasons the move could happen, I just doubt it's really got anything to do with actual violent murderous terrorism, or natural disasters.

I think when you consider that FEMA has been building detention facilities across the country in recent years, now they're deploying a significant number of battle hardened troops in the USA in the name of security.

To me it would suggest they are anticipating a big event that might cause a high level of civil unrest across the country at some point in the next couple years.

[Matt_o_Mac]

9/11 (2)...

Shooting of the President....

[JamesyEsquire]

Reading the article it basically says that if their is a nuclear attack on the United States then they want the power to deploy 20,000 troops to help deal with it. It dosen't sound that evil to me to be honest, firstly it hasn't even been approved so it may never happen and secondly it does make some sense to enable the military to help out in such an event, the emergency services would never be able to deal with that on their own.

[The General]

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this is step one towards cutting military funding? and with it moving America from a pro-war state?

It looks like moving the Army to the actual country would be a good idea because it at least gives a reason why he'd want the Army to change their training methods rather than just abolish half the army in one swoop. Cadets have jobs too and letting them go wouldn't be the smartest things to do.

[Silver10]

Reading the article it basically says that if their is a nuclear attack on the United States then they want the power to deploy 20,000 troops to help deal with it. It dosen't sound that evil to me to be honest, firstly it hasn't even been approved so it may never happen and secondly it does make some sense to enable the military to help out in such an event, the emergency services would never be able to deal with that on their own.

I was going to say that but I didn't really feel like getting into it... I mean, there are definitely some people out there who want to blow us to smithereens. yay.
It's not a strange move at all. Troop shortages don't take away the threat... and what does the third amendment have to do with anything (ever:P)?

[hibernatus]

U.S. to send more troops to Afghanistan

(CNN) - The U.S. military plans to move three more combat brigades to Afghanistan by summer, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

Gates landed Thursday in the Afghan city of Kandahar, where he was met by Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces battling a resurgent Taliban and its al Qaeda allies. Gates said the deployment will include one brigade that was scheduled to be sent to the 7-year-old conflict in January and two more that have yet to be named.

"I have not yet signed off on the specific units and I wouldn't want to speculate off the top of my head," said Gates, who has been held over by the incoming Obama administration.

McKiernan has requested four additional brigades, including the one scheduled for January deployment, between 14,000 and 20,000 troops. But in September, Gates said the Pentagon would be unable to commit new troops before spring or summer of 2009, partly due to its larger commitment to the war in Iraq.

The U.S. military has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is less than a quarter of its total strength in Iraq. However, the security agreement signed by the Bush administration and ratified by the Iraqi government in early December requires American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraqi cities ahead of a complete withdrawal by the end of 2011.

Gates told reporters ahead of his landing in Kandahar that the ideal size of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is still being debated, and that Americans needed to be "more sensitive" toward Afghan concerns about international troops on their soil.

"My view would be, I would like to put a lot more stress on accelerating the growth of the Afghan army," he said. "The history of foreign military forces in Afghanistan, when they have been regarded by the Afghan people are there for their own interest and as occupiers has not been a happy one."