Now they want to overturn pussy communists!!!!!

Post #46,356 by boxley 7/22/02 9:26:07 AM Reply	Now they want to overturn pussy communists!!!!! [link\|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20World%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topworld&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_windex&bt=ad_position1_windex&box=ad_box_all&tag=worldnews&middle=ad_frame2_windex&s=APTspnhWsVS5TLiBN\|no more pussy communists] "Washington, July 21 (Bloomberg) -- The government should consider reversing more than a century of tradition and law to give the U.S. military a bigger law enforcement role in the event of a terrorist attack, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and some lawmakers said. " nostalgia for the good old days of 1865 reconstruction. Look out the yankees are coming again!. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,379 by Brandioch 7/22/02 12:05:16 PM Reply	Huh? ``I think it is time to revisit it,'' Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. That would ``allow for military that has expertise with weapons of mass destruction to be called in'' if such a plot was discovered. Huh? As "experts" to help the local police? I have a news flash for you people, the "experts" that the military relies upon are government contractors. The military people know how to deploy them and how to use what they're issued to minimize their casualties. But they don't know anything about dealing with them on any other level. Ridge downplayed the notion that the government would move to give members of the military authority to arrest U.S. citizen. The subject hasn't yet come up for debate in the administration, though it might be discussed once Bush's homeland security department is created. We currently have a US citizen under "detainment" by the military. This is a BIG issue. It is ``not very realistic'' to deny the military the ability, for example, to shoot at suspected terrorists trying to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on a passenger train, Biden said. #1. What is the military doing, carrying weapons and ammo on a civilian passenger train. This is in violation of all kinds of regulations. Allow me to rephrase that question. "It is 'not very realistic' to deny the military the ability, for example, to shoot at suspected terrorists at the local Starbucks." #1. Military personnel have to be at that location. This is acceptable. #2. The military personnel at that location have to be carrying their weapons. BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! This is a BAD THING!!! This is CURRENTLY a COURT MARTIAL OFFENSE!!! You do NOT take your weapon OFF POST without authorization and you do NOT EVER take it into a CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT! #3. The person who just performed all kinds of violations in #2 ALSO CARRIES LIVE AMMO!!! For everyone who does NOT understand the reasoning behind this, think about the firepower of an M16. Now, think about the fact that it only takes a .22 pistol to kill the person carrying the M16. So, a bad guy in a store wants your M16 so he kills you and takes your M16 and knocks over a few banks and wastes a bunch of tellers. We do NOT provide free weapons upgrades for the bad guys! Now, suppose the military gets called in because a "suspected" terrorist has a chemical weapon. If it is a REAL terrorist, the military will be there TOO LATE to do anything but help with the clean up. Pay attention to what happens in Israel. Waiter: "Sir, one for dinner? Smoking or non-smoking?" Terrorist: Boom! Other diners: "Ahhhhhh! Eehhhhhhh! Help!" ``Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot-to-kill, if in fact they were approaching the weapon,'' Biden said. Again, Israel. The momement they identify a "suspected" terrorist with a bomb, calling in the military is too late.
Post #46,498 by wharris2 7/23/02 11:11:14 AM Reply	Nit Now, think about the fact that it only takes a .22 pistol to kill the person carrying the M16. With a reasonably good shot (often hard to do in the excitement of the moment). Better to have good stopping power than to be defenseless. Take the case of the shootout in Wilmington, Ohio, February 17, 1997. Police and fanatics were blazing away at each other. The incident is most notable for being (mostly) caught on videotape (you might be able to catch it, if you didn't see it the first time, on Cops reruns.) Nobody even got hit despite apparently emptying their weapons at each other in a shootout where everyone is within 10-15 feet of each other, and at least two (the officers involved) presumably being somewhat trained in the use of weapons. Later, one of the perps were seen in a parking lot and another shootout occurred. 26 rifle casings from the extremist's weapon were recovered there. The only injury was an arm injury to a bystander. You can probably point to counter-examples, but I think you're exaggerating the "being able to take weapon away" aspect of the entire thing. Nevertheless, I agree that the military have no business doing police work whatever weapons they are carrying. Police investigation and confrontation has an entirely different goal from the proper use of the military. It's an oversimplification, but a police officer is there to arrest criminals, and protect innocent bystanders, and a private in the army is there to kill the enemies of the United States and break enough things to persuade to not shoot back. Trying to have one do the job of the other impairs their ability to do their primary job. Military effectiveness is decreased by "police actions", while police effectiveness is decreased by a "Shoot first and ask questions later" attitude - and when a police officer kills an innocent bystander, or even an unarmed not-so innocent or surrendering criminal, investigations, lawsuits, and even dismissals ensue. If the U.N. or the U.S. wants to have an "international police force" of some sort, fine - train one that's designed to do that, don't coopt member nations' armies into jobs they're poorly equipped and not trained to do. If the U.N. or the U.S. feels it wants to go to war, then do so, don't go about it half-baked.
Post #46,694 by Brandioch 7/24/02 9:50:32 AM Reply	Scenario. Soldier walks into a 7-11 with an M16. Bad guy in the store wants a weapon upgrade. Bad guy moves behind the soldier and caps him with a .22 pistol and takes his M16. Bad guy might be able to take out 2 or 3 unsuspecting soldiers. If bad guy has a friend there who also has a .22 pistol, it becomes very easy. You can probably point to counter-examples, but I think you're exaggerating the "being able to take weapon away" aspect of the entire thing. I'm talking about walking up behind an unsuspecting soldier and putting a .22 pistol to his head and killing him. I'm not talking about a firefight. If the U.N. or the U.S. wants to have an "international police force" of some sort, fine - train one that's designed to do that, don't coopt member nations' armies into jobs they're poorly equipped and not trained to do. If the U.N. or the U.S. feels it wants to go to war, then do so, don't go about it half-baked. Yup. "Peace-keeping" is not something the military can do. At best they can stop the bad guys from doing anything overt until they leave. Only a local police force can keep the peace.
Post #46,380 by marlowe 7/22/02 12:07:56 PM Reply	Next there'll be carpetbaggers and attempts to enforce... the 14th Amendment, opposed adamantly by guys in sheets. Then they'll just give up because it's all so much hassle. Just think. If they'd followed through back then, would there ever have been all that racial violence in the 1960's? Leaving things half done results in a lot of unfinished business. But back to the subject: at least it's our military. Soldiers raised in a democracy, with democratic ideals, defending their own country. And even if they are tempted, as long as we still have democracy, we can control them. Plus their mothers will give them hell if they get out of line. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. Free Joel Mowbray! I'm a-gonna put a gun rack on my SUV.
Post #46,401 by Ashton 7/22/02 3:08:30 PM Reply	Shudder to think: your idea of 'follow through'.
Post #46,496 by marlowe 7/23/02 10:58:37 AM Reply	I have a feeling what's really bugging you is... the very notion of following through. On anything. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. Free Joel Mowbray! I'm a-gonna put a gun rack on my SUV.
Post #46,503 by boxley 7/23/02 11:55:47 AM Reply	No I think you might be underestimating the problem. The military(army in particular) with the exception of CID and the MP's are trained to drink copious amounts of alchohol and kill people in far away places. They are not trained in Constitional procedures for searches, arrests, interogations or chain of custody for evidence. If terrorists are hiding in the US the army can setup roadblocks, annoy everyone, cause commerce to faulter due to delays and catch no one. They cannot do anything else useful. Now they may be useful in the ports examining containers, but an ultrawave device is a heck of a lot more useful. The only reason to suspend posse commititus is to place fear in the hearts of americans and get them used to being pushed around by other Americans. Does Kent State ring a bell. The military being called out to quell riots hasnt had a stellar record. I didnt realize that riots were about to happen. The 82nd Airborne went into Alabama and escorted safely a young lady to school. I didnt realize that terrorists needed escorts. think it through logically and the idea of the army policing the nation only helps those who wish to repress americans, the government. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,516 by marlowe 7/23/02 12:52:49 PM Reply	It's not that I don't have my doubts. It's that I haven't seen much in the way of viable alternatives. I just don't think the FBI or INS are up to the task. Nor will any to-be constituent components of Homeland Security immediately after the coming reorg. Maybe after massive reforms, drastic personnel change, and a few years to get up to speed. But in the meantime, what? The local police? Too, um, local. (And in some places, corrupt and unprofessional.) We need to coordinate information on a national scale, at the very least. Global would be better. How about the National Guard? No, forget I said that. Armed Pinkerton operatives? Um, no. I know the sort of people who go into the Army. By most measures, they're not the brightest bulbs in the marqee. But most of them have a basic notion of right and wrong. That's better than can be said for a lot of people. Especially in the public sector. The one good thing about a drunk with a gun is his aim is lousy. So long as your aim is better than a drunk's and you're halfway alert, no problem. Now a line of drunken soldiers firing a volley... I doubt they'd be able to pull that off. At least not by classical Euclidean notions of planar geometry. Oh, and look for shelter for when their bullets come back down. Vigilantes? Private militia? Also too local. Tending to parochial. Sometimes wqith a distressing lack of respect for civilians. And there are those lingering questions about John Doe #2. Now private citizens with guns work out okay in Israel, as a supplemental measure. They do plug terrorists on occasion. But they have a lot more experience with this sort of thing. Give me my Second Amendment rights and I'll trust the government with all the rest... if they know what's good for `em. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. Free Joel Mowbray! I'm a-gonna put a gun rack on my SUV.
Post #46,552 by Brandioch 7/23/02 4:25:50 PM Reply	Let's hear it from the Ivory Tower! By most measures, they're not the brightest bulbs in the marqee. But most of them have a basic notion of right and wrong. That's better than can be said for a lot of people. Especially in the public sector. Okay, this is where academics (Marlowe) and real world experience (Brandioch) conflict. I've been there. I was one. What is up with you people? You think "military" is a different species? These people are just like everyone else. They ARE everyone else. Except they joined the military. There is NOTHING that makes them special or honest or intelligent or ANYTHING different from any other citizen.
Post #46,709 by marlowe 7/24/02 11:22:46 AM Reply	Well, I sometimes think you're a different species. Or maybe Gomer Pyle's dark side. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. Free Joel Mowbray! I'm a-gonna put a gun rack on my SUV.
Post #46,714 by boxley 7/24/02 11:59:31 AM Reply	ROFL! made me think of the new star trek Commercial, The two marketing analysts with a poster of a Klingon hottie on the wall behind them. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,720 by Brandioch 7/24/02 12:08:37 PM Reply	Poor baby. Just because the real world doesn't match with your book fantasies. :( That's the problem with you ivory tower academics. You get so upset when the real world doesn't match your dreams of how it should be.
Post #46,603 by Ashton 7/23/02 6:27:07 PM Reply	What bugs me (among others) is simplistic oratory of the precise ilk, For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong. H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw And.. Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10 (via tse) And.. The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) Karsten? ..to put it all in Other Peoples' Words\ufffd. (No need for me to elaborate; besides.. I've read Human Events AND Newt's war-plan for confounding political dialogue ca. 1992. I Know from what doggerel your simple Boolean Solutions\ufffd always originate.) What fools these mortals be! Puck ..words for the Land of the Nintendo-Eloi 2002 (Ashton \ufffd)
Post #46,405 by Simon_Jester 7/22/02 3:58:59 PM Reply	Scarier and scarier... But back to the subject: at least it's our military. Soldiers raised in a democracy, with democratic ideals, defending their own country. And even if they are tempted, as long as we still have democracy, we can control them. Plus their mothers will give them hell if they get out of line. Isn't that what Chile said? Reminds me of the jokes running around about Clinton never giving up the White House. Except I couldn't see Clinton declaring Martial Law because of the 'War on Terrorism' and rolling out Tanks to keep himself in power.
Post #46,435 by mmoffitt 7/22/02 8:06:43 PM Reply	Re: Martial Law because of the 'War on Terrorism' ... Except I couldn't see Clinton declaring Martial Law because of the 'War on Terrorism' and rolling out Tanks to keep himself in power. Clinton, no. But this is learned behavior. Dubya's just doing like Daddy showed him.

Welcome to IWETHEY!