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.

 

The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S

page: 5
112
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Mind
 


Yes something does not feel right!

reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


This situation is quite different...you would need to read the article first off...

The States have sovereign control over the National Gaurd...
Not the Feds.



Now, before you run under your American flag and speak of the "noble contributions" of individual Guard members or sing the praises of the Guard in disaster relief, be very clear -- individual contributions or disaster-relief activities are not the issue.

The National Guard serves in two capacities -- on the state level and, if needed, under the direction of the federal government. When acting in its state mission, the National Guard can be mobilized by each state's governor to provide relief after natural disasters or other emergency situations.

But, the National Guard's primary role is to support the U.S. Army in military actions. Its secondary role, and one that gives us warm fuzzy feelings about this particular deployment plan, is civil relief. The federal government is deploying military units to the southern border to support federal law-enforcement activities.

And that is militarization of the border. The Second Amendment lovers should be up in arms.
www.elpasotimes.com...

So this seems to be a clear violation of The Second Amendment!




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


You're going by if they were to deploy troops into each state. I don't think they would be that stupid. Taking over key areas would be the first move. Take those areas, secure them, and then you can spread out from there. Basically move across the U.S. like a spreading fire. I would split the 400k into four groups and take a major city in each of the four corners and then move towards the central U.S. This is just the way I would do it. I really don't believe we would have as many citizens fighting back as we all hope we would. 400k troops with all the support to go with them(armor, air, artillery) just might be enough.

Now take into account a scenario where many Americans had died or fallen ill with Swine flu and the 400k numbers don't look so small.

Who knows, just thinking out loud.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I really worry that the vaccinnes that our vets are taking are doing them alot of harm and I beleive it is for a reason. With out them how can we stand against this new world order.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by epete22
reply to post by Moshpet
 


I agree but they wont go after all of the states, only the states they feel are the biggest threat. Nor do they have to go door to door, they can easily surround the cities and cut off all food, water and electricity.


Agreed.

Most ideas on ATS are too intricate. Think 911, people - (relatively) SIMPLE. Most cities have limited exits, which means 400,000 UN troops on roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. could work. Shut everything off, like epete22 said, and just keep the exits closed. Easy Peasy!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Well La De Frickin Da.Is it not stated somewhere that Anyone whom resists or conspires against the government is a terrorist? we then if that is so, we are all marshmallows in a microwave. That Obama guy sure is stirring things up hey.I guess I'd better go out and get some barbed wire-N-fence posts and start outlining the property.. I knew that lookout tower, trip wires, night vision goggles, and plenty-o-munitions would come in handy.I picked up a 50cal. on line boy that'll be fun....but really on the serious side. If any of you believe this to be coming true, what are YOU gonna do about it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux
 





This is just the way I would do it. I really don't believe we would have as many citizens fighting back as we all hope we would. 400k troops with all the support to go with them(armor, air, artillery) just might be enough.

You're talking as if the resistance were going to be using standard military tactics. In actuality, if Constitutional militias were involved, it would most likely be a guerrilla war, one which no US force has ever "won". After all, Francis Marion (alias the Swamp Fox) was an expert in guerrilla tactics.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Look, I don't need to waste any time or enegy debating the reality of this - it IS real! Follow the path and connect the dots, this has been in the works for ages. All that they've needed is pretext and now they believe they have it with their manufactured pandemic.

Now, more to the point... I truly feel bad for these egomaniacal narcissicist scum! They are so full of themselves and their belief in their "plans" for a truly worldwide government that they honestly believe that they can pull this off. Too bad for them that they haven't been paying attention - people ars pissed off!!!

Sure, they will murder lots of innocent people, destroy huge portions of the globe with chemicals and weapons in their mad dash toward complete supremacy - BUT... ultimately they will all end up hanging by their necks, throats slit, from the treees and street posts the world over.

The second this thing unfolds things are going to immediately start going very, very badly for them. Most soldiers will dessert their posts and will not turn against innocent people - foreign or domestic. The few that remain will have to face the outrage of furious patriots and will be significantly outnumbered. Those dumb enough to fight will be killed, the few remaining will go underground. In their panic they will unleash that which remains of their chemical and biological weapons against innocent people. The survivors will see to it that they quartered and piked or hung in the streets.

Folks, this is the Apocolypse. Apocolypse literally means a new beginning. This is the Armegeddon which we have learned about where good triumphs over evil and a new world is born. Now it is up to each and every individual to decide which side they fight for - evil or the side that triumphs! I'll see you on the field of battle!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 



Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They were wrong.
Ronald Reagan


I sure do miss that man.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I havent read all the posts yet but had 2 seconds to post before I left from work...
400,000???
Kind of unlikely considering that would just about sum up the entire enlisted U.S. Army, and remember, 1/6 of those are actual combat oriented units. Plus since we have a finger in about 120 or so other countries pies, that would mean abandoning a lot of posts that I am sure they would never want to give up for political reasons.

I will read more tonight when I get home to see if I am way off base.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 
Well I for one won't argue with ya, I HAVE been watchin all this unfold with bush in office. read my statement.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.


So if these additional powers are granted, one man gets to decide all this. What about separation of powers? What recourse do we have in this case?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
So if these additional powers are granted, one man gets to decide all this. What about separation of powers? What recourse do we have in this case?


Yes, one man. They have been architecting that level of authorty for over 30 years. Now they have it! All that remains is the pretext to exercise it and that is well under way.

What recourse do we have? I think you know the answer to that question my friend. You may not like it, but I believe that you - and millions of others - already know that answer. See you on the battlefield!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hotrodturbo7
 


Right now there is objection from the States...
The governors are objecting.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
What I love are the comments from readers on the progressive, "ho hum, nothing to see. JFK---blah, blah, blah"

400k troops comes to 8k per state. If you take into account logistics, support, and intelligence personnel then this is what, 1500 to 2000 combat troops per state.

The assumption here, the US military can quell unrest in an instant. Hah, that's a laugh! Vietnam, Somolia, Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan ring any bells?

Now, take the First ID into south central or the USMC first expeditionary force into ATL. Or send the Rangers into rural Missouri or Kentucky.

Iraq would be friggin' cake walk by comparison.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Maybe now is the time to get off our computers and start organizing. Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I wonder if they are worried about the war being played out in Mexico.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Again, just my opinion. Call, write, fax, email your governors!
Let them know how you feel!

We can keep this on a state level...
We will all be better off!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
You guys slay me, you really do.

400,000 troops 'posted' on American soil. What a disaster.

Oh, wait.

According to the graphic here [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/07/030723-d-6570x-003.jpg]-> Army Global Commitments

EDIT: I dunno what happened but a whole lot of typing got lost somewhere. Give me a few minutes to recreate it...

[edit on 13/8/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   











posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Ok, so my next question is , is this 400,000 troops in addition to any NORTHCOM forces already here? Wouldn't logistics already be in place with the existing base and fort structure?

And as a tertiary concern, if the state poo-poo this, and the Fed finds a way to force it, can the federalize National Guard as well, or can the states block that?

In other words, If the state and Fed both try to control Nat. Guard in a seccesionist situation, who trumps?




top topics



 
112
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join