X-posted into another thread, closed-out input.
I have long felt that our military could/should be used to secure our borders. After all we are dealing with an international threat from outside our borders.
Nor would I disagree with using them for humanitarian aid in the event of a natural disaster.
However, soldiers are not cops. Their mission is completely different than that of law enforcement and their use in such a role would be criminal, if not disasterous.
The border states can run their own border control using their own NG units. Maybe they could get regulars to reinforce, or get extra federal money to raise extra NGs, but the NGs are historically used for internal duty and they should be the spearhead.Wrong answer my friend, the NG is a State asset, this outfit has 1 set of rules for every state and the jurisdiction to persecute them in all 50 states and prolly beyond.
I do agree it should be state NG's but the answer will come back:
"Well what if an a-Q terroist cell drives from WA to OR when the OR NG are deployed to Iraq? Or just steps over any state line? Gotcha!!!!
This is a NWO shock troop force cloaked as a reaction force to repel invaders and help out after disasters, multi-tasked unit of very war hardened desensitized shock troops. Or maybe I have it all bass-ackwards?
Out of any uniformed troops, with ABSOLUTELY no disrespect meant, implied or cast towards the fine upstanding troops who constitute our National Guard units, they are [IMHO] the very least likely to be effective in say putting down a local uprising of civilians, because those civilians are their own neighbors, workmates, friends, kin, etc. If any unit was to refuse that way brutal duty I think it would be them, but take say the NC NG and swap 'em out for the TX NG in masse and maybe now they would have the temerity/disassociation factor/climate to fire or attack a local armed, trained and organized militia (2nd Amd. style). Works in reverse if those local 'home-boys' R armed looters or disorganized armed thugs/gangs ala post Katrina, that is when the NG would shine. If I presume wrong on this assumption, PLEASE someone yank my reality cord hard! A unit who has learned that shooting armed civilians in kaftans for long deployments in Iraq or Talitubbies without a single drop of remorse or regret is one to fear if Americans in Levis ever lock & load on them. I stand open to accept any flaws in this line of logical thinking.
And that's exactly why I'd prefer to use local NG units for most things. We can swap them around if they need to control civilian uprisings.Out of any uniformed troops, with ABSOLUTELY no disrespect meant, implied or cast towards the fine upstanding troops who constitute our National Guard units, they are [IMHO] the very least likely to be effective in say putting down a local uprising of civilians, because those civilians are their own neighbors, workmates, friends, kin, etc.
Thing is ronwill my friend, all of the armed forces have their own LEO's who enforce the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, a set of laws that do not apply to civilians, only touch on EPW civilians and almost say nothing about true unarmed U.S. civilian corraling. So out of units which wore both civilian and military attire sprang the infamous Gestapo, their prodigy the KGB, the MOSSAD, MI5/6, French Surete, (SP?) and now a creation that can be used for the good or the detriment of Joe-Public:
It is also done in emergency's by the National Guard, Katrina and 9/11 are examples of this.
Obama's security force could degrade very quickly into an SS type outfit, especially if a youth corps was included (sound familiar?). To have such a force in place for the "changing demands in civil obedience" is a very scary situation.
As I recall, it was the National Guard that came into homes with their guns pointed and stole the guns from law abiding citizens. There is a problem there.
Indeed. Obama has been full of imperial statements and positions throughout the campaign. Notice the next speech he gives. He talks constantly of "his" staff and "he" will do this or that or want this or that. He virtually never talks about the country or even for the good of the country but constant "I", "I", "I". Sounds dangerous to me (and I hope I am wrong, I'm too young to die, and too old to give up my freedom).