The NWO Combat Team.

[HK4U]

Out of any uniformed troops, with ABSOLUTELY no disrespect meant, implied or cast towards the fine upstanding troops who constitute our National Guard units, they are [IMHO] the very least likely to be effective in say putting down a local uprising of civilians, because those civilians are their own neighbors, workmates, friends, kin, etc. If any unit was to refuse that way brutal duty I think it would be them, but take say the NC NG and swap 'em out for the TX NG in masse and maybe now they would have the temerity/disassociation factor/climate to fire or attack a local armed, trained and organized militia (2nd Amd. style). Works in reverse if those local 'home-boys' R armed looters or disorganized armed thugs/gangs ala post Katrina, that is when the NG would shine. If I presume wrong on this assumption, PLEASE someone yank my reality cord hard! A unit who has learned that shooting armed civilians in kaftans for long deployments in Iraq or Talitubbies without a single drop of remorse or regret is one to fear if Americans in Levis ever lock & load on them. I stand open to accept any flaws in this line of logical thinking.

Canis-Lupus

I also fear foreign troops wearing blue United Nothing, I mean United Nations helmets. There have been many that have trained in our country and would have no remorse in killing Americans.

[toreskha]

Out of any uniformed troops, with ABSOLUTELY no disrespect meant, implied or cast towards the fine upstanding troops who constitute our National Guard units, they are [IMHO] the very least likely to be effective in say putting down a local uprising of civilians, because those civilians are their own neighbors, workmates, friends, kin, etc.

And that's exactly why I'd prefer to use local NG units for most things. We can swap them around if they need to control civilian uprisings.

[boris]

is the same as Col. Travis when Generalissimo Santa Anna ordered him to surrender The Alamo. and yes . i do know the rest of the story. what TEXAN doesn't?

[ronwill]

We already have a military organization designed primarily for homeland defense, it's called the National Guard. It has been called on many occasions to defend and aid in national emergencies. Katrina and 9/11 are the most recent instances. The following taken from their official web site:

Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.

We also have the Coast Guard for offshore protection. The following taken from their official web site:

USCG has a broad and important role in homeland security, law enforcement, search and rescue, marine environmental pollution response, and the maintenance of river, intracoastal and offshore aids to navigation (ATON). It also lays claim to being the United States' oldest continuous seagoing service. The United States Coast Guard has about 40,150 men and women on active duty.

Now I ask, why do we need a "security force" to protect us? I'm skeptical of this need.

[ronwill]

Thing is ronwill my friend, all of the armed forces have their own LEO's who enforce the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, a set of laws that do not apply to civilians, only touch on EPW civilians and almost say nothing about true unarmed U.S. civilian corraling. So out of units which wore both civilian and military attire sprang the infamous Gestapo, their prodigy the KGB, the MOSSAD, MI5/6, French Surete, (SP?) and now a creation that can be used for the good or the detriment of Joe-Public:

Canis, I agree there is no need for a "security force" of the type suggested by Obama. As for the military policing civilians, this is done on a daily basis by the Coast Guard during arrests of drug runners, etc. It is also done in emergency's by the National Guard, Katrina and 9/11 are examples of this. Obama's security force could degrade very quickly into an SS type outfit, especially if a youth corps was included (sound familiar?). To have such a force in place for the "changing demands in civil obedience" is a very scary situation.

[maybejim]

It is also done in emergency's by the National Guard, Katrina and 9/11 are examples of this.

As I recall, it was the National Guard that came into homes with their guns pointed and stole the guns from law abiding citizens. There is a problem there.

Obama's security force could degrade very quickly into an SS type outfit, especially if a youth corps was included (sound familiar?). To have such a force in place for the "changing demands in civil obedience" is a very scary situation.

Indeed. Obama has been full of imperial statements and positions throughout the campaign. Notice the next speech he gives. He talks constantly of "his" staff and "he" will do this or that or want this or that. He virtually never talks about the country or even for the good of the country but constant "I", "I", "I". Sounds dangerous to me (and I hope I am wrong, I'm too young to die, and too old to give up my freedom).

[HK4U]

As I recall, it was the National Guard that came into homes with their guns pointed and stole the guns from law abiding citizens. There is a problem there.



Indeed. Obama has been full of imperial statements and positions throughout the campaign. Notice the next speech he gives. He talks constantly of "his" staff and "he" will do this or that or want this or that. He virtually never talks about the country or even for the good of the country but constant "I", "I", "I". Sounds dangerous to me (and I hope I am wrong, I'm too young to die, and too old to give up my freedom).

It is dangerous. Here is another point.

Alex Jones' Prison Planet: The truth will set you free!
The Government’s Argument for Deploying Troops in the U.S. is Ridiculous - Even On Its Own Terms