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.


Serious question about the US Reserves

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:39 AM
Ok, this is a serious question, I didn't know where to put it, but please don't send this to BTS. !!!!

Ok. There's plenty of proof of the Army getting ready to operate here at home, in the US.
(I know there's more, but that's all I'm giving you right now lol)

I have not been hearing anything about the Reserves. What is becoming of them? Will they be working with the Army that will be operating in the US? I thought the Reserves were the only ones who were supposed to work on the US homeland and all.
Sorry I am not always good at putting my thoughts into words, but... We don't even need the Reserves if we got Army troops all over the US, operating here, doing what the Reserves were supposed to do (and, I imagine, more)

They are supposed to protect us here, at home, keeping all official army forces, from needing to patrol here.... Are the Reserves rumoured to be just as corrupt in places? Will they cease to exist? Are they safe to join, to actually uphold the Constiution and keep the people safe?

Where's the small civilian armies of PATRIOTS who are ready to defend the Constitution?

So confused.

EDIT Typo... Might try and make this post more clear to my meaning, if it ever comes to me.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by LostNemesis]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:02 AM
The reserves are still going to work, taking care of their families, sitting in their recliners enjoying life until they get that call to duty.

I keep reading posts here at ATS that troops will be seen everywhere as if a huge invasion force had come. Its all quiet and peacefull here in the land of the lost Wy. Maybe thats why!!!

Anyway seriously, the only reason why mass troops would be walking the streets or riding around in tanks and hum-vees is because they were called to either stop rioting, ward off an invading force, or simply doing excersises for just an event of invasion or riot control.

Quite frankly, I think that if there is an invasion or huge massive riots going to take place, I cant think of anyone better to handle those things than our armed forces. Local authorities are limited in their abilities and resources to handle large occurances. Thus they would need a bit of help.

But I also believe that if people are going to rush on out and stirr up problems to protest about something and cause property damage and harm to innocents, then who better to handle that.

Its one thing to protest against something you dont agree with. But if someone or a mass of people start riots and cause harm to protest, then that is not protsting at all, its domestic terrorism.


posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:05 AM
The patriots still exists.

They are everywhere, both in and outside the system. The time will come when the PTB will no longer trust anyone. Then you'll know where they are.

For all you know, you may be one too.

The decision comes at the opportunity to act, to speak, to spread the word. Then the patriots will be found. Not before, not while they are 'hunting' and setting traps.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

Your post sounds more 'hopeful' to me, than anything else. That a time when those in control will not know for sure who under them will be following their agenda, or have some other interest in mind... When the chance arises to expose or disable them.

I can't help but think 'militia' was the word I had in mind, but couldn't come up with.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:32 AM

Todd Mason captured the dichotomies in Perot the man when he described him as an "Antigovernment patriot, antiunion populist, antimanagement capitalist, loyal boss who sold out twice to GM, [and] billionaire defender of the underdog." Perot’s gadfly persona worked in tandem with his populist rhetoric pitting "the people" against the entrenched elites. He also encouraged, in a mild, often implicit, way, the early stirrings of nationalist xenophobia as an antidote to globalization by multinational corporations. Perot racked up close to 20 million votes in the three-way race where he garnered almost 19 percent of the total. But columnist Michael Kelly nailed down the troubling aspects of the candidate when he called Perot "an example of the melding of populism and the paranoid style, of legitimate critic and crackpot, of giving voice to valid grievances and hysterical fears."

This was unknown to me, if all true. Maxmars, thanks for getting people thinking.

new topics

top topics

log in