It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Civilian Reserve Corps: Threat or Fantasy?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham
With all due respect, you may get your wish. I'm not sure that it'll come down as you so graphically suggest, but your point...makes my point. We'll need to agree to disagree on this one. Social justice need s to be meated out by the governed. When we allow it to be dished out by the people who govern, we risk becoming the targets of our own laws and that ultimately tempts the people in power to overstep the boundaries we set for them. this is why our votes matter so much. This why we are at such a crucial moment in our history. [Edited by Don W]




I don’t want to paint too gloomy a picture. Keep in mind that our country survived the War of the Rebellion - Civil War - from April 1861 to April, 1865. There was actually sporadic fighting for about 3 more months after Appomattox Court House. The largest Confederate army, the Army of Northern Virgilia, had surrendered and had been disbanded. Within 2 weeks of the Lincoln assassination, the wrong-doers had been caught. Jefferson Davis had been apprehended.

The Radical Republicans - I actually believe that “Radical” was part of their legitimate name and not a desultory characterization - was well on its way to the 14th Amendment. Can you add some clarity to the “Radical” thing, Mr J/O? Just as upsetting to the public weal, was the Industrial Revolution under way from post-Civil War and on into the first decades of the 20th century. The 1880s-1890s saw the largest influx of immigrants ever. I’m thinking nearly 20 million people in barely 20 years? The Western Migration was advancing under full steam, well, the transcontinental railroad was running under full steam.

I’m not all that worried about a “take-over” either of the government or by the government. Look at the PRC as an example how hard it is to control a large population. 98% of the PLA’s current manpower has the primary duty of keeping law and order in China. Yes, the US has 1,000% better communications and quicker response, but OTOH, we have far fewer dependable volunteer Armed Forces. All in all, while I am entirely disappointed with the direction the country has been taking since 1981, I do not see it having a Solzeneitzin type Gulag Archipelago outcome.

[edit on 3/18/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I'd like to show you just how easy it can be for people to talk about draconian measures. Cadres and internment camps are only "verboten" so long as we insist that they are.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   


posted by Xpert111
I was referring to the fact the Bill might become so watered down that it would not serve its original purpose rather then [redefine] state rights. If Congressional leaders support a State that is refusing to secure the borders then the leaders deserve to come under fire for contributing to the existing problem. The idea isn't to move in and trample all over the states . My admin would be happy to work with the states in terms of integrating current security measures etc. [Edited by Don W]



The “border’ states have no authority, they lack the resources and have no real capability to control the border of the United States of America. Aside: Let’s enumerate the “border” states. TX, NM, AZ, CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA. 29 states. Not to count AK or HI. 31. Resume: “Border states” in contemporary usage refers to those states sharing a common border with the Republic of Mexico. TX, NM, AZ and CA. The real problem with Mexicans is that we both want them and are unwilling to allow them legal entry. The Border Problem is an American problem. Killing people who cross an imaginary line is counter-productive, not to say morally wrong.



As for how my admin will pay for this lets just say once Marijuana becomes legalized it can be taxed. Licences to sell and grow Marijuana can also be sold. As for reforming the Federal agencies the goal is to improve them so that they will be able to do the jobs without increase in the Federal bureaucracy . . people who do not meet the [immigration] requirements but still wish to become US citizens may be given the chance to serve in the US military. By serving in the US military a person has given a service and proven there loyalty to the US. What is un-patriotic about people who are willing to put there life on the line in order to gain US citizenship? [Edited by Don W]



1) What about old, fat or dumb people? Is the US only open to smart, athletic, 18-25 years old persons? 2) What magic will it take to get more work out of the same number of bureaucrats?



posted by Justin Oldham

I'd like to show you just how easy it can be for people to talk about draconian measures. Cadres and internment camps are only "verboten" so long as we insist that they are.



Well, America has plenty of historical experience locking up innocent people. We put the Cherokee into Oklahoma. The Apaches into Florida. The Plains Indians onto meager reservations where they were starved or semi-starved. We put the Japanese types into concentration camps. We have locked up 25% of the black males under 35. A high proportion of which were innocent of the charges against them. The Governor of Ohio ordered the NG to Kent State. The Mayor of Chicago ordered the police to attack the demonstrators in 1968.

The President of the US ordered the US Army to disperse the Bonus Marchers in W-DC. Despite the 1st Amendments guarantee of the right to peaceably assemble and the right to seek redress of grievances. Breaking the law is old stuff for the elected officials of the US but not the bureaucrats who serve the public.

[edit on 3/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Your point is well made, but I just wanted to demonstrate by using somebody else's words just how easy it can be to justify some of the more extreme things that worry me.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Your point is well made, but I just wanted to demonstrate by using somebody else's words just how easy it can be to justify some of the more extreme things that worry me.


Your point is well taken.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I'm just glad we can have conversations like this. As you see from the counter, more people read this thread than post in it. If I can make any of them think, it'll be worth the effort I put in to it.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Well J/O, I think we've explored every possibility and all the pro and con reasons for and against reviving a civilian conservation corps. Or cadre as you prefer.

801 views. 46 replies.

Being at the end of my rope I pronounce this thread, FINI.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
My goal is to develope many discussion threads in this Conspiracy Master Forum. As each week passes, there will be new ATS members who are coming to these issues for the very first time. I hope to present them with an archive of intelligent and informative posts that will do more than just pique their curiosity.

As i write this, there are six threads "under construction." They'll be here for anyone who wants to read them. They could go active again at any time. Such is the nature of ATS. When that happens, I'll do my best to make sure that those renewed discussions and debates are just as crisp and properly moderated as they have been. Thanks very much for your participation. I hope to see you in other threads that interest you, as they come online.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I am not attempting to revive this thread, but am assuming that the subject matter will continue to be read, and thought I might add an addendum, of sorts.

While I am not the deep political thinker that J/O and others are, there seems to be a lacking in observable expected milestones posted here. An early warning system,as it were. I will post a couple that I think might serve as an alarm bell, and leave it to the wiser minds to add as they see fit.

For this cadre to be more than a minor voting block, for there numbers can scarcely be overwhelming, lest most measures of control by centralized power be lost, then they would need influence grater than numbers alone. To be blunt, they would need the power to coerce.

If in the near(?) future we see these CRC people being armed, "for their own protection", while abroad, and then brought home still under arms, this would IMO be a red flag. I can foresee this as a so called way to use their expertise to fight imported terrorism. This justification for internal security would be one more step on the road to exchanging liberty for safety, and touted as being for the public good.

They would in fact be more along the lines of a new Federal Police Force. The major difference would be the fact that these new enforcers could start with a clean slate as far as rules of conduct go. As a loyal tool of centralized power they could then use force and threat of force to wield power far in excess of their small numbers.

Let us hope that these things do not come to pass. I have said before, and will say again, that I am not for anything that would lead to organized violent confrontation within our nation. The time to stop conflict is before it starts. Our nation is by and large a wonderful place, but it needs to always have our
attention as regards it's direction, lest that sad reality become inevitable.

To this end I urge each and every person to do no more than two things. First VOTE. To do so is not just your right, it is your duty. In this way you serve your country, and to fail to do so is both a failure for yourself, it is a failure towards your family and friends. Secondly, each person here has the ability to email. No matter what your stand on such matters are, you can be a mobilizing factor just by emailing this and other political sites to friends and family. In this way an informed populace can decide where they stand.

(In the matter of sending political emails, I would suggest that you not try to persuade others to your own viewpoint, but instead, ask them to look carefully at these sites and decide what merits they have. People love to give opinions, as is evident here at ATS. While this may seem a very passive approach, it will open up the debate to a wider audience. An informed public is the only sure road to a free society.)

Any others who feel there are waymarkers that I have not mentioned, I am sure will find a manner to post them.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'll be the first one to admit that this is a far future projection. Even so, I took the opportunity presented in Mr. Bush's speech to point out what could be coming. If anyone has something they would like to add to this topic, please feel free to do so.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Cross between Hitlers Youth idea and the ccc camps? I wonder about the selective service that my children are going to have to sign up for in a few years. I did "OPT OUT" though I doubt it will make a difference.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
Cross between Hitlers Youth idea and the ccc camps? I wonder about the selective service that my children are going to have to sign up for in a few years. I did "OPT OUT" though I doubt it will make a difference.


The Selective Service is a conscription board, and as such wouldn't have any power to indocrtinate. The cadres, as we will come to know them, will be civil service organizations that will indoctrinate by use of clever standards of conduct and standardized operating procedures. It's worth noting that while many of the most well-known cadres (SA, SD, DPRC, Comintern, Shining Path, etc.) did/do employ specific educative programs, their modern counterparts will tend to be more bureaucratic in nature.

The easiest way to create a cadre is to foster loyalty to the group. Anyone can do this. Even I have my own "posse" that grows with the passing of each month.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham


posted by antar
Cross between Hitler’s Youth idea and the CCC camps? I wonder about the selective service that my children are going to have to sign up for in a few years. I did "OPT OUT" though I doubt it will make a difference.


The Selective Service is a conscription board, and as such wouldn't have any power to indoctrinate. The cadres, as we will come to know them, will be civil service organizations that will indoctrinate by use of clever standards of conduct and standardized operating procedures. It's worth noting that while many of the most well-known cadres employed specific educative programs, their modern counterparts will tend to be more bureaucratic in nature. The easiest way to create a cadre is to foster loyalty to the group. Anyone can do this. Even I have my own "posse" that grows with the passing of each month. [Eddied by Don W]



Do we still have the Selective Service? In 2007? I thought that went out in the 1970s when the volunteer armed forces came in? Not so? Update, please.

Antar says he “opted out” but I don’t recall anyone getting that privilege unless he moved to Canada, etc. When I signed up in 1952 it was under the UMTS, Universal Military Training and Service Act. Required 8 years of service. Active duty + reserve time to = 8 years. The law was passed after the 1950 Korean War began. The theory was everyone over 18 would be eligible to serve - we did not know then that we might not be fighting the 400 million people strong Chinese.

Now that the Dems won in ‘06 J/O, do you still see indicators the cadre you are concerned about are closer or would you say, further from realization?

[edit on 5/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
www.clark04.com...


"By signing up for the Civilian Reserve, volunteers promise to make a sacrifice for their country, when and where needed."
-taken from Wesley Clark's web page

Do a google search. Enough said.

Pay attention to this. It is important.

Thank you.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Stewart Lewis]

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Stewart Lewis]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Thanks very much for the update. It's easy to think that this can't happen in America. Even so, the words have been spoken. The only thing remaining now is for the deed to be done.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Pres. Bush went before a joint session of Congress to give his 2007 State of the Union address. As expected, he called for an increase in the size of the U.S. military . “. . we can add to the ranks of our military - so the Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead . . I ask Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years.“ [Edited by Don W]



It scares me more every day, and when I hear Bush43 express it this way, “ [to make] . . ready for all the challenges ahead . . [add 92,000 to Army and MC]“ I am under the impression we have about 450,000 Army, 300,000 Navy, 300,000 AF and 150,000 MC, about 1.2 million men and women in uniform and on active duty. There may be 200,000 National Guard of which half or 100,000 may be eligible for call-up to active duty and maybe a like number in the various Reserves. 92,000 in this context is not very many and shows me either this is round one, or the Prez is not serious.

It scares me to hear the Prez so glibly say ready for “ . . all the challenges ahead . . “ which is another way of saying to us ordinary folk that the Neo Cons have more plans for other Iraq type adventures. Once we thought Geo W was too dumb to be a Neo Con but now it is obvious to me that Geo W was the Numero Uno in the Neo Con takeover of the American Government in the nearly botched 2000 Florida coup d’etat. The last thing we need is more armed forces. We need to reduce the Armed Forces by 92,000 a year for the next 5 years. Now that I’d go for!!

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Don,

Technically, the US is at war right now buddy! The congress issued a declarartion of war back in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. Althogh Afganastan has cooled down a lot, congress has never formally declared an end to the war.


Tim



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Modern armies are going to be used in different ways in the 21st century. In the 1990's, "peacekeeping" was recognized to be the next great challenge in the next great century. Academic, politicians, and military leaders are still at odds over just what that really means and how many soldiers will be needed to fulfill this mission.

In the context of this thread, I have presented "cadres" as a means of political control at home. Domestic politics. Those of you who know your history will recall that the Brown Shirt (SA) were never deployed to combat. Before they were dissolved, they were used entirely on the home front.

As much as I would enjoy the debate, I'd have to say that army size belong in another thread. Any small scale mission we might attempt today could easily swell to something larger. For example, Darfur could easily consume half a million soldiers if that conflict grew, which it could.

It's true that cadres here at home would have an effect on the army. More cadres at home means that more army can be deployed over seas.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I'll be in GA from June 29 to July 7.

Don W

Hope this is not too short to pass.

Thx

[edit on 6/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Roger that. Myself and my inner circle will be having a little vaction fun our own selves. As my entourage grows, its getting harder to find places to hang out. Ha.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join