It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Troops only ocuppied so gov can take over?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:52 AM
I think that perhaps you all should ask yourself a better series of questions, such as how does this pertain to today' events and how may this progress our government. This is all speculation of course but what if the purpose of Iraq and Afgahnistan are simply to occupy our soldiers?

With 28 or so states considering or delcaring sovereignty based on what the constitution says, who is going to enforce that piece of paper. The constitution can say what ever it wants, but only works if the bad guy respects that paper or if one has the muscle to enforce it. The states are claiming what they are based on what the Constitution says what powers belong to the state and not the federal government.

Where are the state's troops (National Guard)? They are all deployed and will continue to be so. So if all of their troops that the states would use to enforce any resisitence from the federal gov, are gone, what backbone or what muscle do they have to commit any resisitence against that same federal gov? THe same can be said for the Fed gov also. Where are all of the active troops? BUT.... remember what Bush signed in when he gave the U.N. troops permission to come on our soil to enforce Martial Law in the event of anarchy. That is the answer to the the Federal strength. So again, the states only have a piece of paper stating the rules, but who seems to be respecting that paper lately. Do you really think that will stand up.

Next question needs to be, well if all of this is true and the troops are just being occupied overseas, how did we get to that point? How was the reason that we are over there created and how much did we go through to get all of those guys and gals over there so that the states would be caught without strength, so that any American resistence is isolated off soil, and so that a foreign militia can enforce on our soil? So how far back was this planned so that it plays out in the future and anarchy is created?

Why is the government putting out financial recovery policies that will make neighbors angry at neighbors, like bailing out the mortgage of your neighbor who doesnt work but not yours when you work 5 jobs and still can not afford, tax, food, gas and a mortgage. Tell me that will not cause a little frustration around the BBQ pit...

Just thinking out loud. I would surely be interested in your thoughts and reply. Feel free to email me back.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:01 AM
Not every unit in the military is deployed or deployable for that matter. They rotate to and from over seas and state side. And there are more prior service members than active duty, I beleive. So the odds for a state side resistance organizing of military men and woman is very probable.

The numbers, believe it or not, are in the peoples favor.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:50 AM
Possible, and yes there are certainly a few prior service soldiers around, however are individuals and not an organized unit. The units that are not deployed or deployable are support units or broken up units of broken soldiers or soldiers without assignment. Also unorganized soldiers. Add to that, when a unit deploys oversease and take their equipment, the equipment stays in place.

Again just thoughts and ponts noticed.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 02:37 AM
Not all equipment stays in place, what we brought with us, we brought back. Many connex milvans full of the crap we had to have, and often didn't use. But it is not like we just up and left every thing we brought over there sitting around.

Any thing we did leave, was signed over the the unit replacing us, so it was always in military hands. We do not just leave our stuff abandoned.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:12 AM
Then you were not part of what I was part of. Thank you for the replies though.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:23 PM
Yes its probably. What then about possible gun control laws I heard they are trying to implement? I guess everything would be done in steps.

top topics

log in