"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

-- Barack Obama

All say heil to the fuhrer!

you dont sound very American to me. you sound more like a bitter partisan looser.

Yeah, we should never have diplomats, and USAID and any of those sissy programs that deal with the world in a non-military pansy way.

The evildoers will take advantage of our weakness if we try to do things intelligently or through diplomacy.

We should always just view the world as "either being with us or against us" and hopefully our military can somehow manage to deal with every crisis or disagreement.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, we should never have diplomats, and USAID
> and any of those sissy programs that deal with the
> world in a non-military pansy way.
>
> The evildoers will take advantage of our weakness
> if we try to do things intelligently or through
> diplomacy.
>
> We should always just view the world as "either
> being with us or against us" and hopefully our
> military can somehow manage to deal with every
> crisis or disagreement.


Bob, are you stupid enough to categorize diplomats as a "civilian national security force." Does it hurt to be that stupid. I truly pity your lot in life.

So sad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, we should never have diplomats, and USAID
> > and any of those sissy programs that deal with
> the
> > world in a non-military pansy way.
> >
> > The evildoers will take advantage of our
> weakness
> > if we try to do things intelligently or through
> > diplomacy.
> >
> > We should always just view the world as "either
> > being with us or against us" and hopefully our
> > military can somehow manage to deal with every
> > crisis or disagreement.
>
>
> Bob, are you stupid enough to categorize diplomats
> as a "civilian national security force." Does it
> hurt to be that stupid. I truly pity your lot in
> life.


The state department is a key agency in the national security apparatus.

Only you would know if it hurts to be that stupid.

So sad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, we should never have diplomats, and USAID
> > and any of those sissy programs that deal with
> the
> > world in a non-military pansy way.
> >
> > The evildoers will take advantage of our
> weakness
> > if we try to do things intelligently or through
> > diplomacy.
> >
> > We should always just view the world as "either
> > being with us or against us" and hopefully our
> > military can somehow manage to deal with every
> > crisis or disagreement.
>
>
> Bob, are you stupid enough to categorize diplomats
> as a "civilian national security force." Does it
> hurt to be that stupid. I truly pity your lot in
> life.



More words of true wisdom from an anonymous poster!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you dont sound very American to me. you sound
> more like a bitter partisan looser.

and you sound like a typical brown shirter.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So sad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yeah, we should never have diplomats, and
> USAID
> > > and any of those sissy programs that deal
> with
> > the
> > > world in a non-military pansy way.
> > >
> > > The evildoers will take advantage of our
> > weakness
> > > if we try to do things intelligently or
> through
> > > diplomacy.
> > >
> > > We should always just view the world as
> "either
> > > being with us or against us" and hopefully
> our
> > > military can somehow manage to deal with
> every
> > > crisis or disagreement.
> >
> >
> > Bob, are you stupid enough to categorize
> diplomats
> > as a "civilian national security force." Does
> it
> > hurt to be that stupid. I truly pity your lot
> in
> > life.
>
>
> The state department is a key agency in the
> national security apparatus.
>
> Only you would know if it hurts to be that stupid.

You have once again showed your stupidity. Now bow down to the alter of "O"

Heinrich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We cannot continue to rely on our military in
> order to achieve the national security objectives
> we've set. We've got to have a civilian national
> security force that's just as powerful, just as
> strong, just as well-funded."
>
> -- Barack Obama
>
> All say heil to the fuhrer!

National Security Force for Obama? Hell no! I won't go! I'll burn my Social
Security Card in protest and refuse to serve in his chicken shit excuse
for National Socialism.

******SPOILER ALERT******

It's called the National Guard, and we already have it.

I would be interested in hearing/seeing where that quote came from, and in what context it was said.

This is one subject that actually has me wondering.

We have the National Guard, which is essentially the state militia, with military command authority. We have the police, sheriffs, and such, which as far as I know, constitutes local law enforcement. We have the FBI, NSA, and a few other agencies that are "national security forces" for all intents and purposes.

What is Obama talking about here? Just curious what the supporters of Obama think of this. We have Posse Comitatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) to ensure that the Federal Government cannot use our military to perform law enforcement activities inside the US - the issue is twofold. One is to ensure local law enforcement has legal authority inside the states to maintain order, and also the fact that the federal troops are supposed to ultimately fall under civil authority (ie the President).

Because I don't get it. To me this sounds like expanding a police state mentality. I don't think we want to bring our military home and throw them into some pseudo law enforcement role.

Just to get this straight - you all do not want the federal government to have the potential to listen in to private phone conversations (over public phone lines and wireless carriers), but you are all ok with suddenly creating a new civilian national security apparatus that supposedly is as strong as the military? For what?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would be interested in hearing/seeing where that
> quote came from, and in what context it was said.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one subject that actually has me
> wondering.
>
> We have the National Guard, which is essentially
> the state militia, with military command
> authority. We have the police, sheriffs, and such,
> which as far as I know, constitutes local law
> enforcement.


RV,
I copied this from "howstuffworks.com". I usually agree with you 100%
but wanted to point out this technicality. In Virginia, the Gov has the
authority to summon the Militia. (all males over the age of 17)

About half of the states in the United States also maintain a state defense force. These forces are more like militias – all of the troops are volunteers, they receive no federal funding and often have to purchase their own uniforms and equipment. A state defense force is separate from the state National Guard, though they may be organized in parallel. Technically, the president has the authority to call on these state militias when needed, but in practical terms, state defense forces are largely immune to federal activation.

Yes, well I usually equate some of those groups to "funny" militia - the ones where I sometimes get the feeling it is just a bunch of folks who like guns too much and shoot trees up in the woods :)

But ok. In any case, the point still remains - not sure what the hell he is talking about. Seriously, it sounds like the "party officials" in your neighborhood that have more power then just about anyone. Because if he just wants to beef up local law enforcement I am all for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2008 12:56PM by Registered Voter.