Urban Combat The Petraeus Way

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by Marked One

 

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about you. Now go get me an Orange Julius.

I'm done talking to you. You're wasting my time.

reply to post by Marked One


NO, no,no. I'm not calling you an idiot at all. That comment was directed toward certain high ranking members of our armed forces (as highlighted in the article) that seem to think military solutions are the answer to civilian problems. I was commenting on how grossly misinformed they were on the respective purposes of the military and civilian police.

I was commenting on their ignorance - nothing you said. If that wasn't clear then I apologize.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by passenger]

Originally posted by passenger
reply to post by Marked One

 

NO, no,no. I'm not calling you an idiot at all. That comment was directed toward certain high ranking members of our armed forces (as highlighted in the article) that seem to think military solutions are the answer to civilian problems. I was commenting on how grossly misinformed they were on the respective purposes of the military and civilian police.

I was commenting on their ignorance - nothing you said. If that wasn't clear then I apologize.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by passenger]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

The Topic is NOT

"Other Members"

It IS

"Urban Combat The Petraeus Way"

Any further Off Topic Posts, especially those "about" other members, will be removed and the poster possibly warned

Thank you

Semper

A certain individual or 'group of individuals' (they know who they are) keeps saying that my idea of mitigating crime in American streets involves labeling Americans as insurgents/terrorists and thus subverting their civil liberties and combine it with having heavily-armed military personnel walking/patrolling the streets in HMMWV's alongside police officers riding in their squad-cars. Can someone PLEASE explain where in the article I supplied (or anything I mentioned in any of my posts) declares anything of that nature taking place.

If anyone can do that for me? That'd be fantastic.

If the government weren't such sell out and the police such power hungry and corrupt scum, this wouldn't be happening.

Want crime to go down?

Stop outsourcing our jobs. Stop violating the constitution, especially the second amendment. Stop giving our money to corporations. Stop protecting the corporations. Stop being corrupt. Stop the lies and propaganda. Bring the troops home. Protect the borders, FOR REAL. STOP MAKING EVERYONE A CRIMINAL. LEGALISE DRUGS.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Protect the borders, FOR REAL.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Vitchilo]

S&F for you.

I especially like this part.

When it comes down to mitigating illegal immigration? (Not to mention hardcore illegal narcotics, arms, and human trafficking. As well as potential terrorists sneaking into our country)

Let us start by putting up that big giant fence everyone has been talking about. Then have the fence electrified, complete with barbed wire, bullet-proof surveillance cameras equipped with NV & Thermal imagery plus automated turrets like THIS and/or THESE. Then top it all off with landmines. And you're all set.

Also...

...I feel we should use Rush Limbaugh's proposal for immigration-laws as a model for enforcing LEGAL immigration.

Shown here:

First off, Marked One, if you are from where i think you are from, you live in my favorite vacation destination. How lucky for you!!!

Using military methods to subdue crime is not something i have a problem with. Using actual military to do so is where i have an issue. As long as it is the civilian police force that is enforcing laws, then we can discuss methodology should it prove to be negative.

The methodology, as well, should not infringe on the rights of our citizens, unless there is no other option to maintain the national safety. I am not talking about that "national security" banner here, i am talking about the safety of continuing our union because of a massive upheaval.

I also have issue with the use of explosives with the intent to kill (as opposed to gaining entry with a small charge). Using rockets, et al, should be something that is not done on US soil ever.

But i guess that this is already what can happen. Martial law enforcement would basically bring the "Petraus" option to bear. It is an option that has always been there, i believe.

The question then becomes, how do we ensure the rights of Americans are not trampled on, and how far do we think our own citizens would go in victimizing their own?

I believe Petraus to be a national hero. He has done an outstanding job of getting the job done while respecting the lives of his men first, and the people of Iraq as a close second.

reply to post by Marked One


I work with LEO's but am not an officer. Just a regular Series 1 Mk 1 civilian that believes in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

The article hits me a little weird. Its calling these dirt bags that have popped some of our friends in blue "insurgents"....Really?

Words mean things.

It mentions (paraphrased) that these dirt bags are in defiance of the "legitimacy" of a legal government.

This is weird in the sense that they are treating the symptom and not the cause. Narco traffic? Hey, do something about the border! Increase security in our shipping channels maybe while your at it! Kidnapping? A large portion IS related to the above.

The phraseology used could be stretched to include anything from the local "Hood Ratz" gang to a TEA party.

Maybe I'm just paranoid.