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.


Obama: 'Civilian expeditionary force' can aid wearied troops

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:28 PM
Perhaps Obama is going to use this new "expeditionary force" to tie into his "Civilian National Security Force" by taking "volunteers" from the national force. It's all slowly falling into place....

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

--Barack Obama

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

--Barack Obama

Some of those skill sets may just come in handy over seas!! and they will be just as well funded as our military.

Just a point to ponder....

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:35 PM
Well it's not new news that he thinks a civilian give-back type of thing would be a wonderful idea for the country. That people should contribute. What's sort of new hear is sending people to nations we are at war in.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:50 PM
Am I being retarded? How is the US gonna pay for this?

Line II

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

Haha. We're already paying for Halliburton and Xe. Sometimes in money and sometimes in erm some other sorts of deals. This could possibly be a way to cut some of those costs. Just one theory.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

So is that what he means, private contractors? Who are conveniently not bound by the same rules and regulations as soldiers. Or do you mean he intends to replace the cowboys with his force, and let Xe etc fall by the way side?

[edit on 1-7-2010 by Big Raging Loner]

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:10 PM
BTW - This is called facism...

Obama Calls for ‘Civilian Force’ as Large as the Military

Speaking today at a town hall meeting, President Obama declared that the military was “overburdened’ by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, say that is among the reasons for his record military budgets as he contends with growing deficits.

Of course, the president’s solution to this is not to scale down those wars. Rather, he is proposing to build a “civilian expeditionary force” that is as large as the military and can be deployed abroad for nation-building duties.

Absent from President Obama’s call was any explanation of the legal basis for this and perhaps more importantly, how he intends to pay for another military-sized institution when the $700 billion plus annual military budget is already choking the budget.

- Talk from peace-nobelist!!!

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

No. We already have that...private contractors. We're theorizing and speculating as to what he might be doing with those in relation to this topic, which is related to a given length of service to your nation by American citizens. To their country. Voluntary at a time of your choice but mandatory for all. With benefits.

However this happens to be expanding it to service in another country. Where there is war. See the post about I've not had a chanced to read it, but they usually give a pretty good perspecitive.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:30 PM
What do the wealthy want. War. Both to grab for resources, and to fuel the industrial military machine.

What do they need? Bodies, tax dollars.

What is failing? Recruitment, the economy, (which provides tax dollars.)

How do they keep their puppet politicians in office?

Elections, popular support.

What does the public want? War?

No, not war, jobs.

How can we make "war" into "Jobs" without recruiting, or drafting, which would be political suicide, so that we get our bodies and our tax dollars?

Hmmmm. It seems to me the perfect solution. More bodies, who will earn money to fuel the economy and provide tax dollars, satisfy the people by providing jobs, and stimulating the economy when that money comes home, not as unpopular as a draft, or recruitment, but fulfills the same function, PLUS it has the added benefit of making the war in the peoples interest, (by allowing them to profit directly from it, which should build support as people come to rely on it financially, and you get to avoid drafting.

Its just a clever political solution to get people behind something they dont want in principle, by finding a way to make it in our interests to wage war.

Just my thoughts on it. By no means the guaranteed solution to the riddle.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Thanks for the heads up I usually give it a read in the morning, missed it today. So basically it would be the equivalent of a draft scary stuff. I could see compulsory military service being quite a good idea, but that's without the deployment abroad.

Got to love the term nation building, should have contributed that to the MSM catchphrase thread.

Thought this was interesting was trying to think of other countries that have compulsory service and Sweden came to mind. They have just ended theirs.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:37 PM
Lots have compulsory military service, and some even include women. I'm not aware of any that have something like this...compulsory nation-building and give-back service (I'm rushed today sorry and it's clear I don't even know what to call it). And while it's not a draft, it sort of is.

In any case, I'm sure there would be people who would go there for numerous reasons, so it shouldn't really become an issue unless people are force assigned?

Thanks for the links...will check out tonight...

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:44 PM
This clown Obama has no clue. About anything.

I dare say he is beginning to rival Bush in the idiocy department.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:46 PM
Is this proposed civilian expeditionary force supposed to be voluntary? Or is this a means for obamanation to get some of us 'trouble makers' (those who are aware) out of the country so he and his cronies have an easier time in pushing their agendas?

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
Geesh, imagine this, the biggest and msot advanced military in the world is overburdenned* sounds like the weight of the world is too much for congress and the military industrial complex.
It sounds to me, like obama wants to make tax paying, overburdenned citizens into a cheaper money saving military. I dont think this is a good idea though. Who are they going to allow to join? I can totaly see gang members getting in..i mean cmon they LOVE shooting and decapitating people! drug dealers and drug lordds having an influence as well. thats what i see.
it sounds like a makeshift draft* im thinking, the militray industrial complex, the same one Eisenhower warned everyone about on national tv in the 50's after his presidency, is going bankrupt. so! to save money, go after the taxpayers. like we dont get screwed often enough obama hugh?

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by Darkrunner

He certainly defeats him in the Ego department hands down, he had the opportunity to be the greatest President ever and has already binned it.

Don't mean to be offensive to Americans here, but isn't there a large proportion of the country who are unfit for military service within the working age group?

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

What does the public want? War?

No, not war, jobs.

How can we make "war" into "Jobs" without recruiting, ...

I do believe you have hit the proverbial nail on the head here. This fact you have discovered for us is as disgusting as anything I have seen coming out of the US gov. for a long time.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Wayne60

As I understand it, when you serve would be. The length of service is I think a year, unless there are "circumstances," but everyone would serve. I think he talked about things like getting $$$ off student loans in return. And made it very clear that it wasn't the military, though I believe if you serve in the military you don't have to do this too. But I'm sure the links above have some better explanations as I'm on the road and going from memory. lol

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

He seemed genuinely idealistic, but I don't think he realized what he was getting himself into re: the puppetmasters. It is a shame. But he should have known.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Truly bloody amazing..
1. A civilian force in a war zone IS NOT accorded any protections under the geneva/hague conventions and related international laws.
As such they would be a very easy target.
2. Your military isnt welcome or wanted there already.. Yet now you think civilians will be ?
Its an illegal/immoral war based on lies.
Pack up return to america and sort your messes at home. The world would be much better off . Your politicians and military have done plenty to earn a bad reputation for your country.. Last thing it needs is for civilians to get in on the rubbish its government and military do around the world.. Yet I can see a number of badly misguided individuals doing what der fuhrer wants and going into a warzone on their own.. Fools and Idiots lah...

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:47 PM
Good points about the Geneva Conventions. .

Doesn't seem to me like he was thinking when he spoke. Or at the very least didn't complete his thought to set parameters. If he was thinking, this is pretty bizarre.

Oh and the comment about adding two starts to the flag...yes. Maybe soon to be three or four. Then again Puerto Rico doesn't have a star.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:58 PM
Holy Jeebus. Obama hit one out of the park with this idea.

I guess he thinks that his mad skillz as a "community organizer" are just what are needed to fix things abroad.

I wonder what his excuse will be when these civilians come home in body bags? And volunteers to boot!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in