400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

[Mega]

http://www.progressive.org/wx081209b.html

I wonder....WHY?
Mike

[Ghent12]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

Fact: the US Army is huge.

If they aren't being stationed overseas to maintain the empire, and they aren't being disbanded, then they are being retained in CONUS.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

Fact: the US Army is huge.

If they aren't being stationed overseas to maintain the empire, and they aren't being disbanded, then they are being retained in CONUS.

This request is to put military on active duty to deal with a domestic emergency.

That is quite different from being in the U.S. for the customary purposes they are here, such as command, control, communications, supply, base operations, training, and other operations in response to non-domestic threats.

Long term, it is yet another in a long series of extensions of federal power over the states and potentially over individual citizens. Short term, it raises the question of "what do they know that we don't know ... yet?"

[dummass]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

It appears to be another Federal power grab, usurping control of reserve forces from the States. By making subtle changes to the wording of the law and using loose definitions to expand Federal powers.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”


This has all the feel and character of the Bush presidency. I guess it's another four year term for the neo-cons. So much for change.

[dummass]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

This request is to put military on active duty to deal with a domestic emergency.

That is quite different from being in the U.S. for the customary purposes they are here, such as command, control, communications, supply, base operations, training, and other operations in response to non-domestic threats.

Long term, it is yet another in a long series of extensions of federal power over the states and potentially over individual citizens. Short term, it raises the question of "what do they know that we don't know ... yet?"

I don't think Ghent12 read the article.

[Ghent12]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

I don't think Ghent12 read the article.

I did stop reading rather quickly. After "raising the prospect" of violating Posse Comitatus, to be exact. Now, after reading the entire article, I realize that my initial impulse was correct. It's a speculative article.

On face, yes, if you fully buy into the tin foil hype, this is scary legislation. If, however, you take a step back and look at it from the other side of the glass, you realize that it is basically just an effort at switching power to a more streamlined fashion. Frankly, I would trust the leadership of the military during a Katrina-type event more than the mess that happened.

There's no such thing as a U.S. Constitution with the power to stop such things anymore, and until people in power start to relinquish their power to the mandates of the Constitution, such illegal usurping of power will continue to happen. I would, however, very much doubt the capacity of this power grab being used in the manner feared by the FEMA campers.

[dummass]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

I did stop reading rather quickly. After "raising the prospect" of violating Posse Comitatus, to be exact. Now, after reading the entire article, I realize that my initial impulse was correct. It's a speculative article.

On face, yes, if you fully buy into the tin foil hype, this is scary legislation. If, however, you take a step back and look at it from the other side of the glass, you realize that it is basically just an effort at switching power to a more streamlined fashion. Frankly, I would trust the leadership of the military during a Katrina-type event more than the mess that happened.

There's no such thing as a U.S. Constitution with the power to stop such things anymore, and until people in power start to relinquish their power to the mandates of the Constitution, such illegal usurping of power will continue to happen. I would, however, very much doubt the capacity of this power grab being used in the manner feared by the FEMA campers.

The majority of the population will accept and support tyranny til the very last day.... Then they will claim ignorance.

Now excuse me, I need to get back to the garage to weld up the supports for the bunker I'm building.

[Quincy K]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

http://www.progressive.org/wx081209b.html

I wonder....WHY?
Mike

Why not? it's probably cheaper to keep them here than anywhere else in the world.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

Why not? it's probably cheaper to keep them here than anywhere else in the world.

This is not about stationing troops here because the barracks are cheaper; this is about using them here for domestic purposes.

Please see the other replies above. Ghent12 had what seems to be the same immediate reaction you did, before dummas and myself rebutted.

[flintlock]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:

[Quincy K]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:

I would have to disagree regarding the bloated military. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

Free money for everyone.

[LargoWinch]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

I would have to disagree. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

Free money for everyone.

At one point does China cares enough to pull the plug on NATO?

[Quincy K]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

At one point does China cares enough to pull the plug on NATO?

If I knew the answer to that question I wouldn't be spending so much time here at iTulip.

Looks like that ex-UAW guy is at it again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkId_c86jGs

Check out the 1:10 mark of the video. He has to edit it as the radio antenna apparantly hits him as he is not looking.

This guy is a fuc_ing moron.

[metalman]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

I would have to disagree. If the FED could have their way, we would all be employed by the military in some passive role.

Free money for everyone.

Government and Service Jobs for All!

The latest payroll employment numbers came out today and they are not pretty. Unemployment has picked up over the past seven months. As usual, before we dig deeper into the Labor Department's numbers to see where jobs were lost and gained, first we unfurl the United Banana Republic of America (UBRA) flag because, once again, the big winner in job growth is in government.

Jobless rate rises to 4-year high of 5.7 percent
Friday August 1, 1:29 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

Jobless rate rises to 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's unemployment rate climbed to a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs, dashing the hopes of an influx of young people looking for summer work.Payroll cuts weren't as deep as the 72,000 predicted by economists, however. And, job losses for both May and June were smaller than previously reported.

AntiSpin: First, the bad news: payroll employment is down for the seventh straight month. Readers are reminded that unemployment is a lagging economic indicator; to see unemployment rising at this juncture of a recession generally means it's going to get a lot worse. As we explained in Housing Bubble Correction Update: Here comes the jobs crash (Part I), we are likely only half way through a recession process that started Q4 2007.

[rj1]

Re: 400,000 Troops to be kept in the US by Pentagon

We already have a bloated military, with almost 900,000 based here already!!:eek: More than enough to defend the US I'd say. :rolleyes:

Well you showcased your intelligence.

How can a military be bloated when our presidents tell them to do more and more while decreasing their manpower to do so? G.H.W. Bush cut it down to the bone, Clinton cut into the bone while telling them to do more and more "peacekeeping" do-gooder bullsh*t, and then G.W. Bush hired a dumbass Secretary of Defense that thought all war was was just having a satellite-guided missile hit a building as if it was some f*cking video game. And that point of view was how a successful overthrow of a horrible dictator got turned into a damn quagmire, not enough troops!

If the majority of posters on this thread wish to actually become educated about the U.S. military, there are a lot of blogs out there that are military versions of iTulip.