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.

 

Pentagon plans 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis

Originally posted by ANNED
20,000 against 300.000.000 bad odds.

I am not worried we have them outnumbered by 15000 to 1


Out of the 300,000,000, how many do you figure have the intestinal fortitude to actually stand up to a well armed soldier? How many do you think would happily align themselves with the authorities rather than risk their lives or livelihoods to stand up to them?




And this is just the beginning.

Average American: "20,000 troops, okay, no big deal."

Obama in 2010: "We are probably going to need 100,000 troops by 2011."



This should not surprise anyone on ATS!

Most of us knew this was going to happen... And now the government is slowly showing the public troops in the streets.

To protect us from the aftermath of a Nuclear Bomb? LOL... nope... more like to protect us from civil unrest during the Great Depression.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


It's not Obama I'm thinking about anyways, just making a point. It's the PEOPLE!!!! Yes, our fellow citizens of this much loved planet are starting to pay attention to the reprocussions of their doing nothing.

You can only back something so far into the corner before it snaps. Add human emotion and logic into the mix and you have yourself a recipe for revolution. History has shown it over and over, if the time comes, people will know.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Reading the entire article, the following is very pertinent:



Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.


I've worked on projects with the military in the past, and I can tell you, from experience, that projects take a long time to come to fruition. Funding is always a problem, changes of administration cause many delays, and cancellations, and just prior to major changes, plans are frequently accelerated. Since 2001 was a change of Presidential Administration, this project was probably in flux, if not on complete hold. Now that it is certain of a new administration, seemingly, not as "hawkish (at least that was the way the campaign presented themselves-I'm not so sure though), the Pentagon is probably rushing things through, because they are not so sure that the Obama Administration would go ahead with things as planned.

Note also:



In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.

In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.



In other words, last year more funds were approved for the program, and it is obvious that this is part of that program.

Furthermore:



Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.

Note that in addition to terrorism, there are four other scenarios for the pilot program.

Finally:


Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.

Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.

"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.


The article was very clear in explaining the use for these troops. Until proven otherwise, this is just cautious planning.

Imagine what the outcry would be, IF a disaster did occur, and we did NOT have a response team to help handle the aftermath.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Finally someone who's seeing it from a similar perspective. How much would it suck if we DID get attacked by a bomb or other methods of destruction, and had no one to help out?

As far as this plan being pushed while Bush was in office I wouldn't doubt it. He's done so much harm to this country it is almost impossible to trust any form of authority for some people.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xilvius
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Finally someone who's seeing it from a similar perspective. How much would it suck if we DID get attacked by a bomb or other methods of destruction, and had no one to help out?

As far as this plan being pushed while Bush was in office I wouldn't doubt it. He's done so much harm to this country it is almost impossible to trust any form of authority for some people.



Okay... how much would it suck if this was the plan to begin with?

Martial Law?
another False Flag terrorist event?


And why are they stationing them only in certain locations? How the hell would the Government know where the attack would be?... Oh wait, that's right,... They will know where the attack will be because it will be an inside job like it always is.

But that's not the issue... The fact that you think this is a good thing scares me.

So where do you draw the line?

Would having Police Check points on US highways be a good idea? Why Not? We can catch Drunk Drivers, Illegal Aliens, and Criminals with warrants...

Hell we might as well have our Children embedded with an RFID chip so kidnappers can't ever get a hold of them.

I mean, if it would suck so bad not having anyone to help... We should have the military on guard in every major metroplex in the US... maybe 1,000,000 troops would be a good idea, and we can even have UN troops to help.

I find it hard to believe that soldiers with Machine Guns are going to help civilians during a biological attack. More than likely they will keep civilians quarantined like they did in New Orleans.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I am betting that EVERY US regiment or division has a ''home base'' or depot/camp/fort to which they call home ..... right.

So when they have finished their tours of duty overseas, they return to their home base ........ right.

So yes, you could have several thousand troops brought home if the US coalition deems that Iraq is stable or because of the world economic status the US thinks that it is too costly to have troops deployed in Europe or other parts of the world. They have to go somewhere ...... or you will end up with defence cuts and soldiers unemployed.

Now with all these troops brought home, they have to do something with them. It seems logical to me that they are at least taught the basics in national emergency scenarios as the armed forces already have a command structure and usually have the manpower and resources to be able to tackle these things.

Most European countries armed forces already do these things as part of their standing in the community ..... this is nothing new to us. In fact i would say that if they (armed forces) were not 'called out' during a National Emergency, there would be hell to pay and the Government of the day would have a lot to answer for.

Some of you are being paranoid because you want to be paranoid ..... get a grip on reality.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


I never claimed I thought it was a good idea. Just that I don't think it's likely there is a big bad agenda behind it. That it is just there in the case of a national emergency.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I was reading this and noticed the URL and the last 3 letters said it all for me.

msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg

It's pretty telling that the MSM will note that, even tho I think that someone will lose their job over it.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by BadgerJoe]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


oh wow, gimme a break! those same people that cry about "innocent" people being harassed will be the first to riot because the govt. didnt take enough precautions if there is another terrorist attack, or should i say when (based on alqaeda saying there will be an attack on the US before the president is sworn in). i highly doubt that if there were thousands of innocents killed via terrorist attack from within the US you and other protestors would stand up and say "well at least there were no innocent people harassed". i would rather have thousands harassed than thousands killed....if you think otherwise, you have your priorities wrong.

with so many sleeper cells in the united states, this is the best precaution that could have happened. so many other countries do the same, but we dont.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Do you folks really believe that there is something sinister going to happen?..Im not wearing blinders or ignorant to the fact that sure something bad could very well happen again but dont you think it would be nice to have some extra internal protection?..There are units that have been deployed 7 times most notably the Third ID, I was deployed 5 times total during my service with three times to A-Stan. The 82d Airborne, 101st Airborne, First Cav and 4th ID are also very heavily deployed because of how highly skiiled their soldiers are so I would like to think that this supposed rumor is for internal fortitude and a very much needed break and god forbid its something more then I will be prepared to do what it takes to protect myself and loved ones.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by cmd18B
 





Do you folks really believe that there is something sinister going to happen?..


At this point, I certainly don't believe there is anything sinister about this. In fact, if it WERE sinister, I don't think they would bother to tell us about it. The troops would just show up one day, with no warning. The fact that this is being widely reported in many different news outlets says that this is just what is reported, namely a PRECAUTION, in case of an emergency, of any kind, needing assistance.

Let's save the paranoia for when it is really needed, such as IF they do start to round up citizens, or whatever.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Thanks for the reply Prof..I can agree with that.. I have to say that being a member on here has opened my mind some but when it comes to things like this I tend to think and know its BS but the extra internal protection would be nice and it would give battle weary troops a well deserved rest.


[edit on 1-12-2008 by cmd18B]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This is a drop in the bucket IMO,20 thousand troops don't amount to much,no thing to worry about here



don't you see.. its being done in phases.. they would never bring 100,000 troops homes in one shot... first it was 1 brigade.. now this.... wake up



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Are you stupid, or just a simpleton that is trying to raise people hackels for nothing?

Hate to tell you, but we alread have a LOT more than 20,000 troops in the US with the Army alone. Add in the Marines, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard, and we likely have closer to 150,000 available to help with natural disasters.

So what? We were doing this when I was on active duty between 1959-1869. We helped with fires, floods, and lots of other things.

How about posting some real news?

Yawn



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This is a drop in the bucket IMO,20 thousand troops don't amount to much,no thing to worry about here



don't you see.. its being done in phases.. they would never bring 100,000 troops homes in one shot... first it was 1 brigade.. now this.... wake up


How people on ATS can't clearly see this is beyond me.

You summed it up.

It's not like they are just going to announce that there will be a military presence in every major city in the US.

They have to take baby steps through the media to get people "desensitized" to the idea first.

However I think a report like this usually suggests that something bad will happen in the near future to help move this police state along a little bit faster.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
A nuclear terrorist attack? The American government can't possibly be thinking of staging that, can they?

Well, I'm sure people said the same thing before 9/11 regarding the World Trade Centers...



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Any way you look at this it is not good. People the troops are not simply being brought back here to bases, they are to become active here enforcing civilian control. If one wants to argue that it is for terrorist protection, it's not worth anyones time to argue with someone so brainwashed and clueless that beleives that. People thinking this is a good thing in any way are the exact problem with this country and the reason which we will eventually slip into a total police state.

It is amazing to see how many dumbed down Americans are out there, and so clear this how America has gotten to where it is today.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Good post, its not for a terrorist attack, there has not been one since 9/11 (which was not even terrorists) and as someone else pointed out we have plenty of troops now in the country of the United States ready to be deployed when needed. Obviously it doesn't make sense to have them deployed around the country waiting for an attack, they are deployed to be USED wherever they are, looking after US!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
As a retired military senior enlisted,I wonder what the issue is here. I would love to see the day that all U.S. military are brought back to the U.S. Close all overseas bases, let those county's deal with their own security.

Put our troops at the border to secure it and send them across the country to locate and remove ALL illegal undocumented foreign invaders that have infiltrated the land and disrupted our society and social structure.

It is time to screw the rest of the world.Let them fall into anarchy and civil war.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Quick anecdote about my past that might relate to this thread.

I used to live in a south american country, and in this country, they too would have military patrolling the streets. At the time I didn't think any of it, I thought it was pretty normal since I had gotten so used to seeing this for years. That is, until my father had said that, when my grandfather had come to visit (he was a WW2 veteran) he saw this as well, and was very concerned. He asked my father if the country was at war or was the country under quarantine? (it was actually, it was an internal war against several terrorist groups) The reason he had stated this, was because when he was fighting in WW2, this was exactly what troops would do when securing a desginated area. I sometimes wonder what my grandfather would think of these times if he were alive.

I, like my grandfather, am concerned as well, because this tactic being taken by the military seems eerily similar. The only difference is that we the U.S. people are being quarantined and will be considered as the enemy by our own military (though they might not think this way, they will probably be fed some BS about this being for the "greater good" yadda yadda, and so, will think themselves justified.)

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Question]




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join