Originally posted by The Vagabond
Creating the potential for evil is evil. Nothing "evil" actually happens just because you plant a landmine, but it's still evil to plant a landmine
isn't it? Because now you've got evil just sitting there waiting for a chance to happen.
Ok, you are basing your whole argument on your own assumption that there are not enough laws restricting Northcom. Tell you what....write to your
representatives and present your case to them if you want something actually done, because obviously you have
your opinion and i have mine....
Neither one of us is going to agree with each other's views.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm tempted to not answer that since I already have. They do not need military help. We can fund, train, and equip the civilian agencies in a mission
specific manner and make sure the funding goes where it is supposed to go. The military should have a minimal role in civil affairs of any kind what
so ever.
And i am also tempted not to anwser because i have given you the same anwser several times.... They themselves say that they have limitations, they
are not a police force, they do not supersede the power of the civic first responders, etc, etc.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
And as we know, you can not meet these new challenges unless you are under a military command which has access to military weapons. We can't possibly
deal with disaster without opening up the possibility that troops could be more readily deployed against US citizens... sorry, i mean
"persons".
You are again making assumtions when it says clearly in what limitations that Northcom has that
they do not conduct enforcement operations, they do
not provide first responders, they do not train of maintain operational forces among other things they
do not do...
Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...
And to think that you mention further down in your post about getting always the slow ones....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is full of obvious loopholes. It says "we aren't...." but it doesn't say "we will not..." So what if my mission statement said "The Vagabond
is not a murderer" but I was armed to the teeth and never explicity said "The Vagabond won't kill anybody". The loopholes are there, they are
obvious, and they allow a back-door for martial law by making the flimsy claim that the troops are acting in a strictly supportive manner to civil
authorities.
You obviously did not read what it says, because they clearly say.
Given these parameters, U.S. Northern Command does not:
Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...
Then they continue to explain what they
do not do.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Like in 1932 when American troops in gassed 15,000 protestors then advanced on them with fixed bayonets, with tanks there in support of them?
en.wikipedia.org...
You are using as an excuse something that happened over 70 years ago...and obviously you did not give the full account of what happened, although I do
agree that even thou the police was outmatched and they were getting their butts kicked that they shouldn't have used armed military personnel.
But.....first of all......let me put it again what is one of the things that Northcom does not do...... Let me actually make it easier for you to
read...
U.S. Northern Command does not: Conduct law enforcement operations
Excerpted from.....
www.northcom.mil...
Second.... Are we to expect the same thing happening in every country in the world who have done something like this in the past to do the same in
the future to their people?....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
When were you in the military bro? I was a Marine just a year ago. I'll tell you a little something about the Marines I've known- they are mostly
conservative and have a disdain for liberals, upon whom they focus their broader disdain for civilians in general. They can be counted on to do as
their told in virtually any situation. They get excited about the prospect of a good fight. They would whoop our arses from here to Timbuktu if they
were presented with the idea that we were a bunch of nasty anti-american scumbags who needed to be quelled. They had no qualms about putting down the
LA riots (rightfully so) but that's exactly how they're going to see all of us if and when the order to put us down is given.
I was in the military in the 1990s, and i trained with Marines also as Aircrew AWs. I know that there are some Marines that think that civilians are
lesser than dung, but i also know that others do not think like this, as well as the rest of our armed forces.... Yes they will be some that will
follow orders to the letter, but most, if they are given an immoral order they are bound not to follow it as for the UCMJ....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not even remotely limited enough. Northcom must be stipulated for specific types of missions using certain types of assetts. Northcom should be
forbidden from possessing, controlling, or providing to police things such as intelligence services (especially SSB) and heavy weapons. Northcom's
ability to assisst law enforcement should be specifically reduced to riot control and perhaps certain other appropriate missions. The military SHOULD
NOT under any circumstances participate in investigations of civilians accused of crimes, the apprehension of individual civilians, etc.
I wonder what
U.S. Northern Command does not Conduct law enforcement operations means......
Originally posted by The Vagabond
So what in the bloody hell does Clinton have to do with anything? Why even bring up who was president. The government acted in an extremely heavy
handed way and burned a bunch of people alive, quite possibly on purpose. New rule: BOTH parties are forbidden to set human beings on fire!
So why in bloddy hell did you bring up Waco if you didn't want to discuss why it was done or who did it?.....
and do tell me...did the FBI purposedly set on fire the compound?..... or was it the result from the gun fight from both sides which made the federal
agencies to use tear gas, which seems to have caused the fire?.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I must be misunderstanding you, because now it seems like you are saying that yes the government has gone too far with law enforcement, but just
because we can't pin the blame on Bush or Clinton we should let them create EVEN MORE potential for abuse?
Does every govenrment in the world does not make any mistakes?....
All of them do, some more than others.... and...once again....you are making this claim because
you think that not enough is being done to
limit Northcom....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
It doesn't matter. You can't violate the civil rights of an accused criminal. I'll give them one thing though- they have their finger on the
pulse of the people. Considering the things they've been doing WITHOUT DUE PROCESS to accused terrorists, they would definately need the military to
arrest any intelligent person on suspicion of terrorism. I'd just as soon end up in a body bag as I would end up in zip-ties and a hood.
Ok...first you call me slow, and now you are acting like you are not exactly the brightest one around....
What is there not to understand about....
U.S. Northern Command does not Conduct law enforcement operations......
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do I always get the slow ones? Listen closely.
Why do i always get the ones who think they are almighty and the ones who know everything more than anyone else?.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The movie examples are serving as examples of consequences. The logic by which the consequences come about is not the point. That is not what
the illustration is meant to show.
You were giving as an example what could happen in real life by what you saw in a movie... First I said that imo, that's not exactly a logical thing
to do because there are thousands of movies which have all sorts of scenarios, some portraying the government and the military as good, some
portraying them as evil...
Second...then i proceeded to demonstrate what i was talking about, and using your choice of making an allegory through movies, by giving you three
examples of movies where the use of military help was necessary to help civilian first responders....and at the end the military did not control the
country.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
With the ridiculous claim that I had based by arguement on a movie.
Ok......so now you are saying you did not use movies as allegories of what could happen in real life?...meaning that you did not at least partially
base your argument on movies?...... Oookaaaay.....
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, I didn't realize that Northcom was staffed by unpaid volunteers and used donated equipment. Would you mind just showing me where it says that on
their website so that we can be sure?
Do you really need the help of someone else to tell you that paying 1,200 people in Northcom is going to be cheaper than training millions of civilian
first responders?......
Originally posted by The Vagabond
If Northcom hasn't got its own assetts then how the hell can we know that we'll have them when we need them? We should be pressing equipment,
training, and responsibility to the lowest levels of the chain so that they are provided quickly, competently, and safely (in terms of our civil
rights).
Ok, once more let's see what Northcom is about....
The Department of Defense established U.S. Northern Command in 2002 to consolidate under a single unified command existing missions that
were previously executed by other military organizations.
Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...
So Northcom consolidates under a single command missions that already exist..... If the missions already exist...they must have their own assests do
they not?...
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somehow this additional bureaucracy is going to help us get federal assets where they aer needed faster although you have implied that Northcom
does not have its own assetts even, making it the middleman for TWO extra links in the chain? Training/Equipping either first responders or existing
federal agencies such as FEMA would be far more efficient and far less open to abuse than a military command encompassing the United States. The
motivation to maintain the postion you do is an illogical insistence on military involvement.
Where did i imply that Northcom did not have their own assets?....
All i said is that it is easier and cheaper to pay 1,200 people than millions of first responders, which was a response to what you said, and I quote;
It would be easier to just better train and equip the first responders directly.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You ask what I'm talking about, then you do exactly what I'm talking about. Your twisting of my words to imply that I have based my entire rationale
on movies is quite apparently flawed and does little other than serve as an insult to me. I can only assume that you do in fact have the intellectual
capacity to see that you are presenting my illustration in an erroneous way. This is no more constructive or intelligent than resorting to petty name
calling- it has no bearing what so ever on the issue, but only seeks to discredit me through mischaracterization.
Let's make this clear.......
You were the one who decided to base your argument of what could happen in real life by what happened in a
movie....did you not?.........
If you did, which I am certain you did.....how did i twist your words?....I gave my opinion of what I though of making allegories from movies as what
could happen in real life....
my opinion.... that's not twisting words.... Twisting words is what you are doing now...trying to make it
sound that you are a victim now....
---edited for errors---
[edit on 4-3-2005 by Muaddib]
