The NWO Combat Team.


Your thoughts on the 'Consequence Management Response Force'?

  • This unit is a benefit to the internal & national security of this nation.

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • This unit is illegal per the Posse Comitatus Act, & as such loses ALL legal authority.

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • This unit must be constrained to humanitarian acts/missions only.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • If you break any laws then U get what U deserve c/o armed LEO's or Active-duty soldiers.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This sounds too much like the Gestapo or the KGB in BDU's.

    Votes: 13 48.1%
  • The military is not trained to treat humans as LEO' do.

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • LEO's will need this unit if civil order breaks down they will need the extra firepower.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • A domestic military unit is a good way to reduce troops from war-zones.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • They must guard our borders and ports/airports, not police our cities or lands.

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • This is the start of 'changes'; the 1st wave of Novus Ordo Seclorum run by our next CiC.

    Votes: 7 25.9%

  • Total voters
    27

Canis-Lupus

New member
X-posted into another thread, closed-out input.
 

Last edited:

Grayfox

New member
I have long felt that our military could/should be used to secure our borders. After all we are dealing with an international threat from outside our borders.
Nor would I disagree with using them for humanitarian aid in the event of a natural disaster.
However, soldiers are not cops. Their mission is completely different than that of law enforcement and their use in such a role would be criminal, if not disasterous.
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
I have long felt that our military could/should be used to secure our borders. After all we are dealing with an international threat from outside our borders.
Nor would I disagree with using them for humanitarian aid in the event of a natural disaster.
However, soldiers are not cops. Their mission is completely different than that of law enforcement and their use in such a role would be criminal, if not disasterous.

Troops assigned to border patrol is a good thing. Troops assigned to patrol our neighborhoods is a bad thing. Troops working natural disasters should be National Guard (already under the Governor's authority anyway) or a re-vamp of pre-Homeland Security FEMA, not US DOD forces.
 
B

boyzoi

Guest
we certainly do live in strange times. the world as a whole is prime for this type of action and I do beleive the military is preparing for it. I hope that people in this country will open their eyes to the reality of this and why it is not only possible but probable. I for one, though not a huge fan of W, do beleive, that he has by the things he implemented, helped stop a 2nd or 3rd outward attack on our country. I also beleive that as we go forward it is not likely that another 9/11 will be the method used; instead it will be multiple attacks from inside using cells currently in place. call me crazy..:crazy_pilot:
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
There are those who would say that putting troops on the border is militarizing the border. So what? If that's what it takes to keep out the people who aren't supposed to be here, then let's do it. After, protecting our homeland is what they're supposed to be doing, correct?
 

boris

New member
securing the border is one thing.

we have LE to patrol the neighborhoods. i believe this is a insidious plot to no good. and very few a bitching about it. they will call it homeland security while they kill you rape your wives and daughters and take your guns for the good of the people. this is atest to see if people will go for it. timeto raise hell. stand up and be a american or live with a boot in your throat.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
This is what the National Guard is for, and what they would be doing, if they weren't busy in Iraq. We really seem to have our priorities misaligned here.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Wrong answer my friend, the NG is a State asset, this outfit has 1 set of rules for every state and the jurisdiction to persecute them in all 50 states and prolly beyond.
I do agree it should be state NG's but the answer will come back:
"Well what if an a-Q terroist cell drives from WA to OR when the OR NG are deployed to Iraq? Or just steps over any state line? Gotcha!!!!
This is a NWO shock troop force cloaked as a reaction force to repel invaders and help out after disasters, multi-tasked unit of very war hardened desensitized shock troops. Or maybe I have it all bass-ackwards?

C-L
The border states can run their own border control using their own NG units. Maybe they could get regulars to reinforce, or get extra federal money to raise extra NGs, but the NGs are historically used for internal duty and they should be the spearhead.

If the Feds want to use regular army units to guard the border as a united front, then that's fine - but that should be set up as a specific thing. Their role should be explicitly defined, and keep it narrowed down to that. Actually, I think the military would be much better off working here, than some Crapistan country on the other side of the globe - their job is to defend us, after all.

As for chasing Qaeda all over the country, in a domestic sense that's really the job of the FBI, which has been doing that so far. The cells mostly operate independently, so although they're "global" in nature, it's not as if they literally have to track a single group of 10,000 people all over the world.
 

HK4U

New member
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

Titles are un-American.
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

New member
my answer....

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?
 
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.
 
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

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

New member
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
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,140
Messages
621,692
Members
74,108
Latest member
USNACCS
Top