Surreal

Urban policing is its own skill set and requires different training and decision trees from going to war.

RandoymRandt

So...that's the training these folks are getting then, per Video?

__________________
~I believe in love and being released from the tyranny of sim lines.~

Brave Republic

I agree and that's why the USMC has the combat village at Quantico and US Army has one at Ft Pickett.

Also you receive training specific to the mission.

When I left the guard in early 90's I was involved in organizing a QRF (Quick reaction force) used for anti-terrorism domestically

House to house and city fighting as well as serving in a poluice role, do require specific training since they are different then the regualr mission as you stated.

BUt what I am getting at is it is not inappropriate for ,military to do it -ie not outside of realm of what they can be tasked with.

__________________
CAVE ADSUM
--------------------------------------------------

Cindy Claveau

Does the fact that I usually back up my opinions with links and facts disturb you that much? You're the guy who claimed "most of the national guard is in Iraq" when only 3% of it is deployed. That's not teflon - that's the smell of truth.

Which deals with my point exactly how? Fact: The US constitution places the military under civilian control. Using that military against civilians in ANY case other than restoring civil order after a disaster or during a disturbance (which are normally handled by NG troops) would violate the Constitution and place the President at risk of immediate impeachment.

The Kent State example is an extremely convenient and weak one -- the governor of Ohio could not control the riots with regular police. The ROTC building was set on fire, people were injured with flying bottles and debris, and his best solution was to bring in a guard unit to restore that order. The fact that those guardsmen were idiots without any training does not invalidate the appropriateness of his action. Nor does it serve as a precedent for US military units shooting unarmed civilians.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic other than muddy the issue of Martial Law in the US, which was the original topic.

You missed the three links I provided earlier? Regular Federal troops have been used before.


03/20/1965: LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama - Truveo Video Search

One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » La. Gov. to ask for federal troops

Little Rock School Integration Anniversary, 50 Years Ago Federal Troops Escorted Black Students Into White School - CBS News

Tell you what -- the day the Feds use private militia forces to enforce domestic order, give me a call and we'll build some Molotov cocktails together. Until then, take your meds and lay down, k?

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Brave Republic

You quoted Summers!!!!!!!!!!! I'm in love with you!

RandoymRandt

Cindy, I gotta ask this...you work for...was it a utility company? I'm not being a smart ass, but that one fact alone would explain the teflon-ness--if you are in any kind of customer service--that is. Trained to be so, I suspect. Least from the time I developed training for one of the baby bells ages ago.

Cindy Claveau

It all started when I borrowed my husband's old copy of "Critical Analysis of the Gulf War". He pimped his other book so much I had to buy it. I like his style - and he's made so many things very clear to me on how badly we fucked up in Vietnam. Or should I say, "how badly LBJ fucked up" by thinking if he didn't mobilize popular opinion, we would just not care. Boy, was he ever wrong.

Bard Jameson

Don't mean to be flippant, but these days this seems to me to be a thin reed upon which to rely.

__________________

Photogenix Flickr Stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34885797@N08/

Photogenix Blog - http://photogenixstudios.blogspot.com/

Cindy Claveau

On my road up the ladder of customer service, I've been called names this forum hasn't even invented yet

It's not Teflon, though. I loves me a healthy dose of skepticism with my morning coffee. If I was all teflon, I'd never be convinced of anything that contradicts my opinion and that's just not true.

I also used to run a conspiracy website which exposed me to all sorts of things like you see in this thread -- my conclusion at the end of the day was that 90% of conspiracy theories are empty nuttiness. It's the 10% we have to worry about.

Merovigan

No, it's not that - it's that you seem to trust the well-armed people who voluntarily give up their freedom in order to be trained killers. That, and the fact that you mix national guard (all-American) with military (1/3 NOT American).


To this, I have to ask what country you live in. Surely it is not mine, where the military is SOLELY under the control of the executive branch. Our elected officials in the house and senate did NOT vote for a resolution of war, but voted to hand over power of the military to the executive branch indefinately or until the war on terror is over..which ever comes first.

It shows how people trained to kill, kill. That is what they are trained to do. That is what a military is for. That is why it should NEVER be deployed in-country. Even when it has, and it went well, it was a bad idea.

When Peyton Manning decides to run for a first down, and gets it, that doesn't mean it was a good idea, nor a good practice. It just means the shit didn't hit the fan that time.




It'll be too late.

__________________
“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.”

Frederick Douglas

Lucifer Baphomet

Erosion of civil liberties.
Breakdown of checks and balances.
Troops on the streets.


Looking at those 3 factors in modern America, I can't see why anyone wouldnt be worried.

__________________

Cindy Claveau

Not flippant at all, Bard. I did mention that it's another reason I'm voting Obama. I think all the hand-wringing over "rights" misses the larger picture, of which "rights" is only one small part -- and that is, our executive was not originally designed to be so centrist and powerful. The Civil War made it worse, but so did WW2, the Cold War, and now terrorism.

It seems like every time our fundamental constitutional guarantees are challenged, it's easier to abridge them than to deal with the situation within the existing rules. Bush has taken this formula to new extremes, and it makes me VERY uncomfortable and worried. I honestly don't see McCain changing that approach much - maybe the McCain of 2004 would, but not the new and improved McCain 2008.

We need a regime change in this country before we become that which Thomas Jefferson hated.

Cindy Claveau

I have 4 ex-military men in my family. They're hardly "trained killers". They're citizens just like you and me.

Here I agree with you - with the very important caveat that this isn't how it was supposed to be when the Constitution was framed. See also my links to the War Powers Act, which has been raped by at least 3 Presidents.

The National Guard, from everything I know, is trained to drink beer and hang out once a month. Calling them 'trained killers' stretches the limits of credulity, Mero. Most every report you'll find on Kent State will also mention that the Ohio guardsmen were poorly trained, and NOT trained at all in crowd control.

A lot of changes have been made to operational procedures since then. We also invented rubber bullets But if looters are running rampant and trashing the business district of my city, it's my government's responsibility to give me the protection that my taxes paid for - including the deployment of Guard troops to restore order.

Two hundred and thirty-two years without a military coup. That's a damned fine record, isn't it? And it's because of exactly the foundation I mentioned.

Serenity

But how many incubments are you planning to vote out?

War can not be prosecutated without the consent of the congress. The president can order troops to war, but the congress provides the bullets for them to fire. We can talk all we want about how nutty Bush was, but in the end, if Congress REALLY wanted to, they could have said 'no', and simply refused to fund it. They could have siad "Go ahead, George, we dare you to send those troops without weapons, without tanks, and without food."

But they didn't. They okayed the invasion and they continued to fund it.

If we want to see regime change then really every one who didn't go on record as voting against spending should be voted out as well, not just Bush/Cheney, who last I checked wasn't up for re-election.

And if it matters, did call my senators and tell them my wishes were for them to, if they believed the war was a mistake, to vote against all funding for it and bring the troops home.

Serenity

__________________
"I don't care, I'm still free; you can't take the sky from me."

Colette Meiji

How can this be the first time the Army has been stationed inside the US and given a dedicated mission?

That doesn't even pass a superficial bullshit test.

Serenity

Could be the first time since we had a unified federal army that it was done with the federal army and not individual state guard units. I mean the idea of having 'federal' corps in the Civil war was very progressive for the day, so that brings us up to the last 150 years.

Serenity

Surreal

As many as it takes.

Merovigan

But, we're not talking about the guard...we're talking about the Army.

The guard was at kent state which invalidates the claim that US soldiers never shoot Americans.

The Army, acting in the country, would be a federally funded and ordered entity, at odds with state police and national guard.

This is new, and it undermines the foundation you applaud for keeping us coup-free for over 250 years.

But, isn't THIS a coup? Isn't THIS the federal government usurping power from the states and saying "Yeah, ya know what...we're in charge now."

Cindy Claveau

In 2003, Bush had a majority in Congress. In 2004, the Dem majority was exceedingly thin and the appropriations bill was portrayed as "support our boys or you're betraying them". It's kind of like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" When did we ever expect our Congress to actually grow balls?

I'm looking at the bigger picture, here - bigger even than Iraq. This all goes back to 1992, when Paul Wolfowitz floated his US Strategic Plan. It was buried for a while, but strangely enough (LOL) it ended up finding itself embedded in the GOP platforms in 2000 and 2004:

Right there is the entire doctrinal basis for Bush's 'unilateralism' and our over-eager involvement in world trouble spots. It's an extension of the positions other Presidents have held before (Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, etc) which is based on the belief that American freedom is good for everybody. Well, maybe it is but you don't go around poking people with guns - you risk alienating the very people you want to convince.

Agreed, but I hope you're not implying that McCain wouldn't perpetrate a lot of Bush's policies. The basic philosophy of his party embraces Wolfowitz's doctrine 100%.

RandoymRandt

I'm glad you brought up the old Wolfie doc--I haven't looked at that in a while and agree that it should be read by every American. Each and every one...

Colette Meiji

I'm perplexed at where to begin ..

The Civil War

The Indian Wars

Troops stationed during the World Wars

The US army Corps of Engineers

I mean seriously .. where does this notion that the US army has never conducted *any* operations inside the US come from?

Heck I don't know where to look off hand but I thought the US army has been used to help in Disaster relief before too.

Colette Meiji

As far as the removal of a layer of "Coup" protection. There are Military bases in all 50 states!!

Cindy Claveau

My brother-in-law owns a dairy farm. When his main stock pond wouldn't hold water, he called the Corps of Engineers. They invaded his property with uniformed troops and showed him what was wrong

I don't know if they charged him for the service, but he didn't mention it.

Fade Languish

However in 1932 Hoover used the US army against the 'bonus marchers', which I think had economic causes.

Colette Meiji

Our Coup protection comes from The Civilian Control of the Military and the 2nd Amendment.

It is bolstered by it being an all volunteer force except in time of war.

Any theory that a standing US military couldn't have taken over the country whenever it wanted to just because their mission parameters were more limited .. seems like something thought up after getting a little too baked.