Mothering Forum banner

Army being trained for homeland to "keep the peace"

4K views 139 replies 45 participants last post by  boobybunny 
#1 ·
This made my skin crawl when I heard it yesterday on democracy now. Apparently the army is going to deploy troops to our homeland starting October 1st to help keep the peace and use non lethal forms of subduing violence. I wonder how long have they been planning this? Is this supposed to coincide with our financial collapse? The timing of this in particular, aside from it being unconstitutional, makes me really nervous right now. Typically this sort of thing is only done during natural disasters like Katrina. So what exactly are they planning for? What do you think? Read the full article here.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/
 
#3 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
This made my skin crawl when I heard it yesterday on democracy now. Apparently the army is going to deploy troops to our homeland starting October 1st to help keep the peace and use non lethal forms of subduing violence. I wonder how long have they been planning this? Is this supposed to coincide with our financial collapse? The timing of this in particular, aside from it being unconstitutional, makes me really nervous right now. Typically this sort of thing is only done during natural disasters like Katrina. So what exactly are they planning for? What do you think? Read the full article here.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/
The army is routinely sent out during natural disasters and terrorist attacks. I know my husband, personally, was assigned to protect school buildings and escort school children home in Texas in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and I know members of his 82nd unit were sent to NOLA after Katrina (where, by the way, they were shot at by looters/rioters). In fact, a large number of military personnel were sent to the gulf area after Katrina. Natural disasters are becoming more prevalent/severe, in part due to global warning, in part due to increasing population density.

It sounds like they're taking the 82nds philosophy of always having a unit on 2 hour deploy notice, and want units to be prepared and ready to go. I'm not seeing the problem here.
 
#6 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronsmom View Post
But why? Other than hurricane Ike nothing is going on. This seriously confuses me. Are they expecting terrorist attacks? Riots in the street because of the economy?
:

I'm trying not to let myself get worried, but WHY are they doing this? That's what I feel worried about.
 
#7 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by SquishyKitty View Post
It's funny that everybody is screaming about bringing the troops home, but is now suspicious of them being here.
I'm all about bringing the troops home but not for the sake of turning our country into a police state if that's what you mean. If anybody saw the police handling of protests at the RNC, with officers in full riot gear, then you have a taste of what I'm talking about. I hardly believe the army will be arming themselves in any manner more subdued than that to suppress the people.
 
#8 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
I'm all about bringing the troops home but not for the sake of turning our country into a police state if that's what you mean. If anybody saw the police handling of protests at the RNC, with officers in full riot gear, then you have a taste of what I'm talking about. I hardly believe the army will be arming themselves in any manner more subdued than that to suppress the people.
This is what I'm afraid of. Why do they feel the need to put troops in place when they haven't before (aside from natural disasters, etc.)? Nothing is going on here. I could understand sending them to the southern states for Ike relief but it doesn't specifically say anything about Ike.
 
#9 ·
Well, I'm sure they will soon convince us that it is because Bin Laden is planning an attack again or Iran is going to bomb us or something else to that extent so that we forget we are in an economic crisis. I mean, who cares if you can't get a job or afford a house....the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming!!


The only terrorists I see right now are the crooks on wall street.
 
#13 ·
If one believes the theory that the whole point of the Bush administration was to sink the country into so much debt that all of the New Deal era programs would have to be eliminated and the government then become small enough to drown in a tub, Bush has managed, in one week, to get here.

All that's lacking is a war with Iran. But he still has time.
 
#14 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Calidris View Post
Yeah, but somehow I don't think most of the people who wanted to "bring home the troops" meant to bring home the occupation too.
Exactly.
 
#16 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
I know my husband, personally, was assigned to protect school buildings and escort school children home in Texas in the immediate aftermath of 9/11,
Really? Why on earth would they do that in Texas and not here, in New York City, where you know, terrorists might actually attack something other than Bush himself? Were they protecting the Bush teens or something? Did they do this with school children in other not-ever-in-any-way-terrorist-targets-but-lets-waste-some-money-and-create-a-culture-of-fear cities like Atlanta or Podunk?

There are maybe a very tiny handful of cities besides New York and DC that terrorists might on a very outside chance, choose to attack. Even those (LA, San Fran, Chicago) though, generally don't have the large Jewish population that New York does or the national politicians that DC does, and hence these remain the 2 most likely targets. For foreign terrorists like Bin Laden anyway. Domestic terrorists it's just whatever government buildings are nearest them or whose policies have ticked them off most.
 
#17 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
Yes, but I worry that any "arms" the American people may have will be no match for what the military will be trained for.
It is this argument that is used to allow ordinary persons to own AK 47s.

Quote:
This may be true in certain places but in the very rural areas and the very urban areas, ya might be surprised

Oh, Yeah.
 
#18 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by PenelopeJune View Post
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Whaaa??????
Unfortunately, what it sounds like to me is that they're planning to attack a city themselves, or help someone attack a city, or most likely just not prevent an attack on a city. Probably just in time to get some horrible images in front of people to claim that Republicans will save us all so surely vote for them in November folks!
 
#20 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
It is this argument that is used to allow ordinary persons to own AK 47s.

Oh, Yeah.
I don't want to get too offtopic but I have actually heard this argument used in defense of gun control, not in favor of arming folks with AK 47's. I'm on the fence myself but like I said, don't want to get into that issue so much here.
 
#23 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
Yes, but isn't this a particularly unprecedented thing here?
Actually, no. After Sept 11, portions of many units were sent to various places around the US. My unit was sent to guard a nuclear facility. Units also do border patrol along the US/Mexico border. They don't do any apprehension, but they do practice border patrol because it mimics their mission in Iraq.

The military is being proactive and I don't see any problem with it.
 
#24 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by iamthesmilingone View Post
And this is when I am grateful for the right to bear arms


Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
Yes, but I worry that any "arms" the American people may have will be no match for what the military will be trained for.
Are you kidding me?!? So, the military is the enemy now?
 
#25 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
Yes, but never trained and deployed for this type of mission, essentially "policing" the country.
From the article posted in the OP:

Quote:
Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Of course, "policing" may be needed in that example to deal with looting, etc. Human nature when in states of mass panic is not pretty. I don't think it necessarily entails nefarious intent on the part of the government to have our military properly trained to deal with chaotic situations that naturally occur in the aftermath of disasters or terrorism.
 
#26 ·
Just wanted to follow up on my own post about what are and are not realistically terrorist targets: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/wa.../12assets.html

I have no problem with training, but what they've outlined as responsibilities are the same things the National Guard is supposed to be for. The army belongs outside the U.S. and the National Guard belongs inside it IMO.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top