Pentagon Deploying 20,000 Troops In U.S.

I never said they are out to protect the citizens i just said they dont need military intervention. plus we dont need anymore troops deployed on home soil. the current National Guard troops in our states are more than sufficient to respond when something gos down.

Originally posted by BarmyBilly
reply to post by Nobama

 

A few shots are enough to disperse a crowd of thousands, regardless if half of you are armed, a few handguns is no match for a professionally trained army.

Except for the millions of professionally trained X service men that know where all the equipment is and the ammo's stored

Those poor 20,000 haven't got a chance

Originally posted by balon0
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Wait don't tell me that you actually think police officers really serve and protect the people? Oh boy....
Sorry to break this to you but they only serve and protect their own paychecks and pensions.

No, not all police officers protect their own. I have placed my life on the line numerous times to protect the people I work for, which is to say the citizens of the city.

But thank you for pointing out yet another level of unfounded paranoia based on a lack of knowledge and understanding couple with personal bias and blanket assumptions.

Can I assume you are a left wing nutjob who beleives in militias and executing mormons on sight? My guess is you are none of those things. I wont sterotype you, please dont stereotype me.

it's gonna be a silent civil war and any protests will be repressed, killed inside the egg.

just...you know...

Originally posted by JROCK2527
I never said they are out to protect the citizens i just said they dont need military intervention. plus we dont need anymore troops deployed on home soil. the current National Guard troops in our states are more than sufficient to respond when something gos down.

Please show me which state agency, or local police agency, has the resources - man power, equipment, medical equipment, medicine, food, water, clothing, shelter - to adequately respond to a nuclear / biological or chemical disaster.

When you are done you will realize why they wanted something like this in place.

People bitch because of Katrina being such an absolute mess and being unprepared.
People now bitch because the government is tying to think forward and prepare for somthing we hope never happens.

And again, you and others keep missing the point that law enforcement and local guard units are going to be in the affected zones. Why do you assume that if a nuke goes off in say Atlanta, that emergency services wont be killed / contaminated?

Those local resources you insist on relying on wont be present. They will be dead / injured / contaminated like everyone else in the area.

Now what?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin,

When the shtf, the National Guard is suppose to be the military response not federal troops.

If their motives are true, it will fail. Do you really think those in the military are going to open fire on their own people? Remember, those are mostly kids, even if brainwashed by the military they will think twice before firing on their own friends and family. That is, unless they are lied to regarding the intentions of the people.

On the other hand, its been building up for some time. I mean, they pass a law that says felons can't own guns...okay, so the people think to themselves, "fair enough". I mean, at the time in order to become a felon one had to be convicted of something pretty bad...like murder, rape, robbery, etc. But then, they change the laws so that becoming a felon is quite and easy thing to become, and most of these convictions did not involve the use of a firearm. There is a felony charge for just about every crime there is, even failing to report on the census is a felony. Now there are a few that get away with it, such as the guy that got pardoned by G.W. Bush because he was his friend. "Opps, one of our own fell into the loop, need to do something." It used to be a felon was only a person who served at least a year in prison, not any more. Now they get probation, kinda like saying "Okay, we got him tagged in the system, let him go." Not sure of the statistics for certain, but some show that 26% of Americans are felons. If this is so then that means that 1/4 of the population cannot have a gun to defend themselves with, which is 26% of the people that the government doesn't have to worry about. So 26% of the people most likely to rebel have already lost the war to come. Many others live in areas where guns are simply prohibited, or at the very least it is very difficult to own one. At the same time, some states have passed laws that allow "White collar felons" to be allowed to own a gun, in other words, members of congress (A joke, maybe). Others, well they simply trust the government so much that they see no need in owning a firearm, uncle Sam will protect them. In most states they also deprive felons of the right to vote among other things, so, they don't have to worry about them anymore. Kill their right to speak up and their right to defend themselves, and they are no longer any threat to the government. Wikileaks, boy they sure did a number on that site without so much as a direct allegation. I could be wrong, but couldn't help but notice while reading a report on it at one time. Related? Who knows. One thing is for certain though, Americans have nowhere near the advantage they once had when it comes to protecting themselves from their own government. Throughout history our government has justified just about everything it has ever done, by calling something a threat...fear tactics so to speak. AKA, a loophole in the Constitution. Invoke fear into the public enough, and the citizens will hand over their rights and practically beg for the Government's protection. Hence, the latest successful attempt under this lie...the Patriot Act. The US is supposed to be a free nation, but it appears to me it has more laws than any other nation on Earth, how ironic.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by JROCK2527
I never said they are out to protect the citizens i just said they dont need military intervention. plus we dont need anymore troops deployed on home soil. the current National Guard troops in our states are more than sufficient to respond when something gos down.

Please show me which state agency, or local police agency, has the resources - man power, equipment, medical equipment, medicine, food, water, clothing, shelter - to adequately respond to a nuclear / biological or chemical disaster.

When you are done you will realize why they wanted something like this in place.

People bitch because of Katrina being such an absolute mess and being unprepared.
People now bitch because the government is tying to think forward and prepare for somthing we hope never happens.

And again, you and others keep missing the point that law enforcement and local guard units are going to be in the affected zones. Why do you assume that if a nuke goes off in say Atlanta, that emergency services wont be killed / contaminated?

Those local resources you insist on relying on wont be present. They will be dead / injured / contaminated like everyone else in the area.

Now what?

Again and again. .. . . . are there not other cities, towns? National Guard? Core of Engineers?

What good are killers with guns going to do? Keep the peace? Scrub radiation? LoL

Give it up there is no good reason for this other than wasting money/ instituting obama's million man militia/ et all. . .

Sounds like things are finally getting in gear for the nwo, or its a fake thread

Originally posted by BarmyBilly
reply to post by Nobama

 

A few shots are enough to disperse a crowd of thousands, regardless if half of you are armed, a few handguns is no match for a professionally trained army.

In all honesty, I believe this story is fearmongering bunk, considering the root sources of the story, but in the event that it's not, you are forgetting a crucial component of your equation - the pool that "professionally trained army" is drawn from, and to whence it returns.

it probably wouldn't be quite the simple matter you suggest.

Also, "handguns"? Haven't been over here lately, have you? Handguns are defensive weapons, not weapons of war. There are absolute TONS of us over here who are acutely aware of the difference, the reason for the difference, and the cure for that apparent disparity.

We've already got what we need, we know how to employ it, and an attack on us, from ANY quarter, will spark up a bad time to be had by all. I'm not sure it would be too bright an idea to toss a match into that puddle just to find out whether it's petrol or not...

reply to post by balon0

Barry: Go forth and raid and plunder all homes! You can keep what you find and get a nice bonus on your paychecks! Cops: Yes Sir!

Your highly exaggerated examples indicate to me that you have no desire to listen to people who have personal knowledge regarding this issue. You just want to label the police as bad.

Did you ever stop to think that out of the occasional media attention given to one bad act by a cop, there are probably thousands more where cops have done good? Do you know how many cops there are in America? Think about that, then tell me how those numbers compare to the number of bad reports you've heard.

The media tends to seek out the bad stuff because they feel it will draw readers. Unfortunately, a number of people don't have the common sense to look at the big picture and tend to start putting labels on people and situations that they have little knowledge and understanding of. This works out particularly well for those who have had some run-ins with the police and find it more appealing to blame the cops instead of admitting they've acted like an a-hole.

reply to post by jaycen420


They're deploying 20k troops to "quail civil unrest"?

O.o

That's like...4k per state. There are over a million people just in my small rural city alone.

Is the 20k in addition to...something else? I don't get it.

Edit: ummm...I just read what I wrote and I have no idea where the "over a million" number came from.
There are only 250,000 people here. The Nyquil that I just took must be kicking in already. sorry

Originally posted by jaycen420
Im just wondering if this goes against Posse Comitatus:
en.wikipedia.org...
This kind of action shouldnt be legal

Yes, it flies directly in the face of Posse Comitatus, but when has a little thing like breaking the law ever even given the government pause before? Bush raped Posse Comitatus, and Obama won't even bat an eye. We've already seen the end-runs he's willing to employ against pesky laws.

Originally posted by boncho
There is about the same number of cities, towns, etc. So that's about 1 military person for each one. I don't suspect the authorities are preparing for any "SHTF", being that they would need a few more men...and women...

Exactly, Boncho. While they are massed in enough numbers to "quell a disturbance" in one spot, all hell will be breaking loose in several other spots where folks see what's going on in the "hot" spots.

That's how classic guerrilla wars get fired up.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Don't try to justify those who decide to pursue a career in using violence and threats of violence to enforce a certain way of life on others.

reply to post by BarmyBilly


The Vietnamese didn't seem to have a problem.

My girlfriend told me earlier while driving around that she saw "like 7 army tanks on a railroad above the street" here in bakersfield, california. I dont have any proof or pictures but she has no reason to lie about something like that. Never seen a single military vehicle in the city before either.

reply to post by bwinks

That's nothing to be alarmed about, that is how tanks are moved from one place to another. By railroad, now if they were rumbling down the street let us know.

Originally posted by alex655320
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin,

When the shtf, the National Guard is suppose to be the military response not federal troops.

And the Constituon is not a suicide pact.

Before you start quoting about loosing freedoms, please check Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution then get back to me.

When you are done with that, research Nuclear weapons, Biological Weapons and Chenical weapons, and the ranges they can encompasse.

Once done with that pick any Us city and draw that radius. Now draw a buffer zone that takes into acount prevailing winds, water direction, walking wounded etc.

You and others ignore the fact National guard units are stationed in their respective states. You ignore the fact all local emergency services are affected by the incident. You ignore the possibility of NG troops being in the affected zones, rendering them useless.

Quit looking at this through blinders.

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Again and again. .. . . . are there not other cities, towns? National Guard? Core of Engineers?

What good are killers with guns going to do? Keep the peace? Scrub radiation? LoL

Give it up there is no good reason for this other than wasting money/ instituting obama's million man militia/ et all. . .

Now, go back and read the article I posted. The troops would be specially trained for those incidents - dealing with uke / chem / bio.

Quit seeing only what you want to support your argument. Quit fearmongering as well...