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

This information comes from wiki. California has 163,696 sq mi of land. Iraq has 168,743 sq mi of land. Iraq is slightly larger than California. Iraq has had around 130,000 US troops throughout the war.

Basically what I am saying is that 20,000 troops being prepared for something out of the ordinary is not that bad. You aren't going to see soldiers at every intersection watching you. That is if we have soldier sitting on US streets. Most likely, it's not going to happen, for the reasons that some of you have in your heads. I am betting that they just want to make it legal that in the event of an extreme case they will be able to send in a unit from the regular Army.

Sure the lack the potential for individual care. There is still not replacement for the military when determining who is prepared to deal with an odd situation. The Air Force can transport anywhere in the country. The Army has a base ready to go. The Navy can deal with anything happening on the seas or near a coast. We have highly capable organizations that could act but wouldn't be able to because they can work within the US.

We our shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing the military to act in a time of need. However, I understand where not letting allowing the military to act within the US comes from. I don't believe military powers would be abused now. Most of our laws are written with good intentions. It's not till years later when those intentions have been forgotten that these laws will be looked over for what we know was "loopholes"

Seems like martial law is getting ready for some funz0rs.

Originally posted by Xilvius
And it is the DIVINE RIGHT and OBLIGATION that ALL American people defend against ALL "evils" (for lack of a better word) DOMESTIC and Foreign. Whatever happens to this country, it happens because we, the people, allow it to happen.

Starred!

You are absolutely correct.

I think what people should be asking is what does "uniformed troops" mean. Does that mean literally Soldiers in uniforms standing gaurd or does it mean locked, cocked and ready to deploy to any hotspots in a short amount of time? Either way, this is nothing new (gasp). The United States has used National Gaurd troops to gaurd certain facilities that are very important and vulnerable to attack (i.e. nuclear power plants, chemical weapon disposal plants etc.) for years. After 9/11, federal troops have been used to augment the National Gaurd. Most of these have been combat support troops that have more up to date equipment or posess some advantage or ability over the troops already in place. Nothing spectacular there. They have no power to do anything to you (Joe six-pack) outside of whatever facilty they are guarding.

As for the the second meaning, this is definately old news. The United States has kept some Army (and other branches') units on standby to deploy anywhere in the world (including the US). When I was in the Army as of June 2007, we called it DRB or Division Ready Brigade. Here's a link for further info:

www.globalsecurity.org...

Basically, the Army has certain units that are always ready to deploy to ANY hotspots within 18 hours. Historically, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division (AASLT) and the 10th Mountain Division have at least one Brigade on DRB at all times. This practice has since been expanded to other Army units since the deployment cycle to Iraq and Afganistan has put a strain on the whole Army. When I was in the 101st, my Brigade was our divisions DRB during Katrina. We were almost deployed to New Orleans to augment the National Guard troops already there.

Anyway, read the link I have provided. I think people that are using this as some sign that the US is going towards martial law are being silly. Like I said, this is nothing new. Furthermore, people who think that Soldiers are mindless zombies who can't think for themselves obviously have never been in the military. Granted, there are some in uniform that are generally considered evil and failures as human beings, but the vast majority will do what they think is right. From the first day of Basic training it is drilled into the recruit's head that it is not only his/her responsibility, but their DUTY to disobey an unlawful order (i.e. shooting an innocent civilian). In fact, they can and will be prosecuted under the UCMJ for following an unlawful order. For further info on this:

usmilitary.about.com...

So, in my opinion, this whole discussion is nothing, but people who have no idea what they are talking about being needlessly scared about something that they do not understand.

reply to post by serbsta


Keep me in uniform this sounds pretty cool...it was bound to happen with the changing of the guard (President & Congress) draw-down in IRAQ, the mixed signals around the world who the real enemy is anymore. We have enough bad guys inside the United States, to keep us (uniformed services) busy for years to come, enforcing the "New World Order" and the new Nazi regimes in Europe. I can stay in another 20 years....Ha Ha!

reply to post by Xilvius



IT IS HITTING THE RIGHT PLACE AND PEOPLE..
THEY JUST NEED TO CHILL AND TAKE A MINUTE TO FIRST STOP BITCHIN AND 2ND..
RELIZE WERE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. RATHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT..
KEEP TELLING THEM THE TRUTH.
SOONER OR LATER...
THEY GET THE POINT..

INVISIBLE MOM.'

"The whole idea behind the government placing militants in urban areas shouldn't be looked at in the negative light that everyone is placing it in. I don't know the true motives behind doing such a thing, but you have to look at the whole picture sometimes and not just fragments at a time.

Everyone is placing OUR own military in a negative perspective, like they all want to kill everyone or something. Just because there are planned to be 20k uniformed troops in the USA doesn't mean its some way of domination or any such absurdity. "

Those you speak of ARE looking at the big picture . . . you are not. By your own admission with "I don't know what the TRUE motives are . . . ," you question their reasons, too. How then, can you be comfortable with it?

No one is accusing the members of the MILITARY of wanting to kill anyone. You should refrain from drawing assumptions like these. You tell me, if you can, what purpose you imagine our troops being used for on our own soil (in our towns, parks, government buildings, or anywhere else) that is going to be beneficial to either of us on a routine basis? Can you tell me? If so, I ask you why, now that we've already been "attacked" by alleged "terrorists" didn't the government feel they were necessary until nearly eight years after fact?

When this story first hit the air waves I saw some reporter asking people on the street about this. He spoke to seven to ten people. Not one of them knew about this. Some were older and some were younger. But to a person they were against it, the idea of it, and against any one who thought it up.

I see in here, when this and other "Big Brother" stories come up, everyone worries that this is it. We are finished. Well, I got news for you. Don't you dare count the American people out. If and when someone tries to either shove this down our throats or sneak it past us with slight of hand I promise you America will stand as one against this. And America is also those soldiers you worry about. If I were still in the military I would consider an order to fire on Americans to be an unlawful order. They will too.

We have dug a hole for ourselves, but we can and will dig out from it. So, pick yourself up, help up your neighbors, and get to it. The sky isn't falling.

So the National Guard is being deployed for overseas combat and not the Military is being deployed within borders???

Can anyone not see that they are blatantly blurring the lines here?

I'm sorry, but, to be honest, I fear the day a national disaster happens and combat-hardened troops are let loose on the American people to "keep the peace".