20,000 troops are being placed on our own soil for our own good. Anyone else terrified by this?

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
20,000 troops are being placed on our own soil for our own good. Anyone else terrified by this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html

 

Does anyone else think this is simply a riot squad to suppress uprisings as the depresseion we are clearly in worsens? The odds that these troops will be used for their intended purpose as NBC response teams is ridiculous - these people are being deployed to police bread lines in clear violation of Posse Commitatus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 

I'm glad I'm armed, to say the least.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
these people are being deployed to police bread lines in clear violation of Posse Commitatus.

Dubya abusing power and ignoring his legal limits?  Well I never ...

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
No, certainly not

No, certainly not surprising. What I worry about is that if history is any guide, Obama wil do nothing to put things back the way they were. Whenever the governement gains or in this case, simply takes, power, it almost NEVER goes away. If there is anything the government excells at, it is preserving and perpetuating the government - which is exactly why you won't see Obama disbanding the Office of Homeland Security or sending these troops home when he is sworn in.

I'm all about the "Bush is evil" card as much as anyone else, but the Dems and Repubs are really not so different, once these troops are in place, they are there for decades - and there for the SAME reasons. This is why civil libertarians fight such things tooth and nail in the courts - when the government gains power, it doesn't give it back and puts systems in place to make sure you can't challenge that power in the future.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
If only American

If only American libertarianism didn't mean more military boots on the ground.

NB - I believe American Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Stalinism is to Communism. For the uninitiated, they're different animals.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If only

jcgadfly wrote:

If only American libertarianism didn't mean more military boots on the ground.

NB - I believe American Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Stalinism is to Communism. For the uninitiated, they're different animals.

 

Huh? I though most libertarians supported a smaller military and only supported using that military in defense (none of this nation building). Could you explain the Stalin comment more? Are you claiming that North American libertarianism would love to create a command economy, run gulags and intentionally starve millions of people to death? That is what I think when a comparison to Stalin is made. For that matter, the article itself says that libertarians are not happy about the troops 'helping' state and local governments. Unless you explain what you meant by this, I'm going to call it as being pure bullshit. I'm sure the cosmo-libertarians in North America love being compared to Stalin.

As for the troop increase, I think Friedman put it best:"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:jcgadfly

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If only American libertarianism didn't mean more military boots on the ground.

NB - I believe American Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Stalinism is to Communism. For the uninitiated, they're different animals.

 

Huh? I though most libertarians supported a smaller military and only supported using that military in defense (none of this nation building). Could you explain the Stalin comment more? Are you claiming that North American libertarianism would love to create a command economy, run gulags and intentionally starve millions of people to death? That is what I think when a comparison to Stalin is made. For that matter, the article itself says that libertarians are not happy about the troops 'helping' state and local governments. Unless you explain what you meant by this, I'm going to call it as being pure bullshit. I'm sure the cosmo-libertarians in North America love being compared to Stalin.

As for the troop increase, I think Friedman put it best:"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

Most libertarians do - American libertarians are something different. A good portion of them are far more conservative than the Republicans.

Otherwise why would thay have chosen Bob Barr - one of the leaders of the great Clinton Cock Hunt and a warrior for government interference in private affairs as their candidate?

The Stalin comment comes from many people confusing Stalinism the political system with Communism the economic system. I was only comparing Libertarianism (which abides by the Constitution) with its American cousin (which gave up the Constitution long ago and only gives it lip service when they need to).

As I said, different animals.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
He's not comparing Stalinism

Jormungander wrote:

Huh? I though most libertarians supported a smaller military and only supported using that military in defense (none of this nation building). Could you explain the Stalin comment more? Are you claiming that North American libertarianism would love to create a command economy, run gulags and intentionally starve millions of people to death? That is what I think when a comparison to Stalin is made. For that matter, the article itself says that libertarians are not happy about the troops 'helping' state and local governments. Unless you explain what you meant by this, I'm going to call it as being pure bullshit. I'm sure the cosmo-libertarians in North America love being compared to Stalin.

As for the troop increase, I think Friedman put it best:"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."


He's not comparing Stalinism to Libertarianism.  He's comparing Stalinism to Communinism and saying that the difference there illustrates the difference between American Libertarianism and Libertarianism.  It is a kind of analogy.  That is, he's pointing out the difference between American Libertarianism and Libertarianism by analogy to two things which should be recognized as having a similar, if not the same, relationship (in this case a large difference in practice and philosophy among other things).

Have you ever seen the problem form A : B :: C : D ?  Example: Air is to Plane as Water is to ____ (Boat).  The point of the analogy is to identify what would be (approximately) equivalent to the comparison made on either side of the 'as'.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Have you ever

Thomathy wrote:

Have you ever seen the problem form A : B :: C : D ?  Example: Air is to Plane as Water is to ____

Super-sub, with lasers, and a huge drill on the front for digging down to the center of the earth, and a pack of trained killer dolphins?

Quote:

(Boat).

Damn.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah.  That's pretty

 Yeah.  That's pretty scary.  By the way, I'm just thinking about this... how long has it been since the last significant terror attack on the U.S.?  Seems a bit like hunting houseflies with bazookas, if you ask me.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Nigel, it was hard for me

Nigel, it was hard for me the first time too.  Oil Platform wasn't acceptable for some reason!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
This is certainly cause for

This is certainly cause for alarm, but if it comes to a worst case scenario I'm sure most people would welcome the stability of troops in the streets. Personally, it probably means more for protection of the elite in society than the population overall. In India, there were attacks in the most poor regions of the country since 1992, but only when the elite of the country suffered did they call this attack a "9/11" style attack.

I've read that during the Great Depression many people were too concerned about being able to eat that they would've welcomed a more totaliterian government. When it boils down to it, most people would rather have less personal freedom if it meant something to eat. Yes, it is a clear violation of what the intent of the military is intended for. Since most Americans don't understand basics civics it can happen with little question.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
In the playbook of Disaster

In the playbook of Disaster Economics a strong military presence is needed to quell citizen uprising during times of economic hardship and the move of the government in forced privatization.  The situation has been repeated numerous times throughout history by the guidance of Milton Friendman followers who think economies must be restarted with a clean slate.  Naturally citizens don't favor this since it leads to immense poverty, unemployment, no governmental services, and a police state (and the resulting violence in order to maintain a free market system).

In the past such scenarios  have played out in Chile, Iraq, Russia, Argentina and other countries which have been brought "democratic reforms".  Not like this situation is new to America since it's been playing out ever since Bush got into office.  Democracy rose in Seattle to challenge the WTO.  Since then the police have received millions to update their arsenal to look more like a military than a police force and free speech requires a permit and is restricted to "free speech" zones.  People suspected in engaging in Democracy are rounded up and arrested as was the case at the Republican National Convention.

Obama wouldn't have gone along with the plan so it was necessary for Bush to put the soldiers on the ground before he left office.  That way it will be more difficult for them to be removed when Obama does take office.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Jormungander

jcgadfly wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If only American libertarianism didn't mean more military boots on the ground.

NB - I believe American Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Stalinism is to Communism. For the uninitiated, they're different animals.

 

Huh? I though most libertarians supported a smaller military and only supported using that military in defense (none of this nation building). Could you explain the Stalin comment more? Are you claiming that North American libertarianism would love to create a command economy, run gulags and intentionally starve millions of people to death? That is what I think when a comparison to Stalin is made. For that matter, the article itself says that libertarians are not happy about the troops 'helping' state and local governments. Unless you explain what you meant by this, I'm going to call it as being pure bullshit. I'm sure the cosmo-libertarians in North America love being compared to Stalin.

As for the troop increase, I think Friedman put it best:"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

Most libertarians do - American libertarians are something different. A good portion of them are far more conservative than the Republicans.

I really don't see this. More financially conservative in cases, sure - socially conservative though? Not likely.

Quote:
Otherwise why would thay have chosen Bob Barr - one of the leaders of the great Clinton Cock Hunt and a warrior for government interference in private affairs as their candidate?

Barr was a ridiculous choice for the LP. Please don't confuse the LP as representative of libertarians in generally - most people who identify themselves as libertarian are not members of the Libertarian Party, myself included, which is exactly why Barr did so poorly in the polls.

 

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If only American libertarianism didn't mean more military boots on the ground.

NB - I believe American Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Stalinism is to Communism. For the uninitiated, they're different animals.

 

Huh? I though most libertarians supported a smaller military and only supported using that military in defense (none of this nation building). Could you explain the Stalin comment more? Are you claiming that North American libertarianism would love to create a command economy, run gulags and intentionally starve millions of people to death? That is what I think when a comparison to Stalin is made. For that matter, the article itself says that libertarians are not happy about the troops 'helping' state and local governments. Unless you explain what you meant by this, I'm going to call it as being pure bullshit. I'm sure the cosmo-libertarians in North America love being compared to Stalin.

As for the troop increase, I think Friedman put it best:"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

Most libertarians do - American libertarians are something different. A good portion of them are far more conservative than the Republicans.

I really don't see this. More financially conservative in cases, sure - socially conservative though? Not likely.

Quote:
Otherwise why would thay have chosen Bob Barr - one of the leaders of the great Clinton Cock Hunt and a warrior for government interference in private affairs as their candidate?

Barr was a ridiculous choice for the LP. Please don't confuse the LP as representative of libertarians in generally - most people who identify themselves as libertarian are not members of the Libertarian Party, myself included, which is exactly why Barr did so poorly in the polls.

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Bob Barr is a

Yeah, Bob Barr is a libertarian like Joe Lieberman is a Democrat.