NationStates Jolt Archive

The following video is an excerpt from a speech delivered in Colorado Springs, CO on July 2, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4
The whole speech is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

What does he mean when he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."? I know that he outlined some stuff about the Peace Corp and other stuff before he said this but this bit about the national security force wasn't really clarified. I hate to say it but these Obama Rangers almost sound like an American version of the Sturmabteilung.

Did he clarify this statement later or change his mind?

Hooray for the incompetence of the two major parties and their equally idiotic candidates!

I hate to say it but these Obama Rangers almost sound like an American version of the Sturmabteilung.

No, you don't "hate to say it". In fact I'd argue you do the exact opposite of "hate to say it". The fact is, anyone who makes the ludicrous and asinine effort to compare Obama's comments to the fucking Nazi stormtroopers not only does so intentionally, but with an agenda a blind man can see.

So don't pretend you "hated to say it" as opposed to the truth, you intentionally, deliberately, made such a nonsensical comparison in order to have the opportunity to compare Obama to Hitler.

yehbut, what is it?

yehbut, what is it?

It's the national guard with a different name from what I've gathered.

SS-Leibstandarte Barack Obama?

It seems like a colossal waste of money better spent somewhere else if you ask me. Frankly, the last thing we need is another military force, especially one specifically tasked with protecting "national security" above and beyond those already in existence. We already have a military and if we needed to boost our security, we could expand those organizations...if anything, it sounds like he wants to create an alternative to the military that's soundly within his own political column. That's pretty ridiculous, of course, but hardly anything particularly new in the history of American politics.

obama plans to disarm 50% of the military and deploy them with signs in the US saying please dont terrorize us.

It's the national guard with a different name from what I've gathered.

Isn't the national guard part of the military tho'?

So now Obama is a closet Muslim Nazi with a Whitey-Hating Christian Pastor?

Isn't the national guard part of the military tho'?

Military refers to the people of an organisation authorised by its nation to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its independence by repulsing actual or perceived threats.

Therefore, this would be part of the military. Obama is just making it sound good.

American military culture sucks, it's elitist and hierarchical as all hell, which is why all the ranks are separated, so those sending people to die and those being sent to die have as little contact as possible.

So now Obama is a closet Muslim Nazi with a Whitey-Hating Christian Pastor?

That's a pretty good description of the Nation of Islam.

obama plans to disarm 50% of the military and deploy them with signs in the US saying please dont terrorize us.

Source?

Therefore, this would be part of the military. Obama is just making it sound good.

The way he says it, it sounds like it would be separate from the military: "Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded".

Or is this like when he talked about withdrawing from NAFTA?

It's another reason I won't vote for Obama. The problem I have now is just who the Hell can I vote for?

In the past, I could always find some little thing, however hidden and miniscule that would put one candidate slightly ahead of another. That doesn't seem to exist here.

The way he says it, it sounds like it would be separate from the military: "Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded"

Shoot, the last thing we need is another fully combat-ready and mobilized army designated solely for policing and "securing" our own people. If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that one army is a necessary evil but a second one is nothing more than a disaster in the making. I mean, the last thing I want to see is Stasiland MKII...not to mention I wouldn't want to see what would become of said force after Obama left office.

He might have good intentions with it, but there's no guarantee his successors would.

It's another reason I won't vote for Obama. The problem I have now is just who the Hell can I vote for?

The third party ;) ?
Or one of the independents. Or perhaps you could run yourself.

The way he says it, it sounds like it would be separate from the military: "Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded".

Or is this like when he talked about withdrawing from NAFTA?
That's the thing. I'm not sure what he means.

I thought the reason we separate military and the police was that o*ne fights the enemy of the state while the other serves and protects the people and when the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. A civilian national security force as strong as the military sounds like a huge waste of money but also seems kind of scary because of the potential for abuse. It has happened before elsewhere.

The third party ;) ?
Or one of the independents. Or perhaps you could run yourself.

Great Idea? I'll start an NSG write in campaign - ASD for president, I promise, oh Hell, I don't know what I promise, but it can't be worse than what we've got.

Let's see - LG will be my Vice President, Smunkee will be head of Homeland Security. NSG can help me set up my cabinet.

AM, will you be my campaign manager?

Obama is a classic Democratic imperialist at heart, following in the 'proud' imperialist legacy of Democratic Presidents.

Great Idea? I'll start an NSG write in campaign - ASD for president, I promise, oh Hell, I don't know what I promise, but it can't be worse than what we've got.

Let's see - LG will be my Vice President, Smunkee will be head of Homeland Security. NSG can help me set up my cabinet.

AM, will you be my campaign manager?

Oh! Oh! Can I be secretary of Generalite affairs? Well, once you create it of course. Oh! Or maybe Generalite-IIer diplomat! Whaddya say?:D

That's the thing. I'm not sure what he means.

The Citizens' Defence Force.
Prerequisite Technology: Intellectual Integrity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L5JgTkxAkg

The guy obviously played too much SMAC. Don't forget to replace "mindworm" with "Muslim" for max propaganda effect.

Shoot, the last thing we need is another fully combat-ready and mobilized army designated solely for policing and "securing" our own people. If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that one army is a necessary evil but a second one is nothing more than a disaster in the making. I mean, the last thing I want to see is Stasiland MKII...not to mention I wouldn't want to see what would become of said force after Obama left office.

He might have good intentions with it, but there's no guarantee his successors would.

Well quite. And there really isn't any need for a civilian security force in the US. If he wants to beef up the peace corp. and send 100,000s of miscreants overseas to do whatever they do in third world countries, I'm fine with that. Not too happy with the idea of a paramilitary federal force with a budget of 400,000 billion tasked with internal civilian security.

He really should sketch out what he means more fully.

Oh! Oh! Can I be secretary of Generalite affairs? Well, once you create it of course. Oh! Or maybe Generalite-IIer diplomat! Whaddya say?:D

Whatever you want. How much can you contribute?

Whatever you want. How much can you contribute?

*Searches pockets* I've got some lint and a rusty penny. is that enough?:D Wait a minute....

Actually, I have several high-powered wormhole creating starships, and billions of dollars in the budget. How much do you need?:D

*Searches pockets* I've got some lint and a rusty penny. is that enough?:D Wait a minute....

Actually, I have several high-powered wormhole creating starships, and billions of dollars in the budget. How much do you need?:D

You've just been made Secretary of Defense in addition to your other responsibilities.

You've just been made Secretary of Defense in addition to your other responsibilities.

*Blows up France* Let's see... If I bomb three nations a month, can I get in every nation in the world, 'cept America? Aw well, I'll just go about how I want it. *Invades Canada*

*Searches pockets* I've got some lint and a rusty penny.
I've got custom clothes, lint, knives, a pizza cutter, a handful of potato chips, a garbage bag, 2 coconut halves, some screws, 3 broken buttons from my old pants, and a sharpie.

I've got custom clothes, lint, knives, a pizza cutter, a handful of potato chips, a garbage bag, 2 coconut halves, some screws, 3 broken buttons from my old pants, and a sharpie.
Give me that! *Writes all over Queen Elizabeth II's face with it* Hah!

Give me that! *Writes all over Queen Elizabeth II's face with it* Hah!

Write on Camilla's face, and I'll abdicate in your favor.

The following video is an excerpt from a speech delivered in Colorado Springs, CO on July 2, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4
The whole speech is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

What does he mean when he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."? I know that he outlined some stuff about the Peace Corp and other stuff before he said this but this bit about the national security force wasn't really clarified. I hate to say it but these Obama Rangers almost sound like an American version of the Sturmabteilung.

Did he clarify this statement later or change his mind?

I've heard this from other sources as well. We don't need a damn blackshirt brigade! It sounds like a federal military police force, something absolutely outside the authority of the federal government and a guaranteed threat to our security and sovereignty. here we're being told that Obama is the 'change' candidate, and it looks like a change toward fascism. Shut up about D vs. R - this is a fascist military police force over the civilian population and labels don't change that fact. This is just as shit-your-pants scary and McCain's plans for war in Iran (assuming Bush doesn't do it first).

I've got custom clothes, lint, knives, a pizza cutter, a handful of potato chips, a garbage bag, 2 coconut halves, some screws, 3 broken buttons from my old pants, and a sharpie.

Wanna be a Supreme Court Justice?

Write on Camilla's face, and I'll abdicate in your favor.

The British one or the American one?

The British one or the American one?

That one.

That one.

*Draws all over Camilla's face in the middle of a performance* You'll never catch me! And if you do, I'll just sick the entire US army on you! Muhahahahhahaha! *Is carried away by a flock of Bald Eagles*

If it's nothing more than a National Guard that can't be legally deployed overseas, I'll be happy with it.

The National Guard ought to be for home-defense and disaster relief. That the current incarnation comprises more of our frontline troops now than in any other war in our history simply shows how badly the current administration has overextended our military and how poorly they have executed this conflict.

Of course, there is the obvious potential for abuse of power regarding such an organization, but I'm hopeful that any efforts in this area will have the same stringent limitations that the current National Guard has regarding deployment and operations in the United States.

*Draws all over Camilla's face in the middle of a performance* You'll never catch me! And if you do, I'll just sick the entire US army on you! Muhahahahhahaha! *Is carried away by a flock of Bald Eagles*

In the middle of Camilla Parker-Bowles-Windsor's performance? I wondered why Charles liked her.

(I think this is an epic Hijack)

Okay, that's enough of that. I'd like to try to keep this thread on a slightly serious track and not get bogged down with spam. I really do want to know what Obama meant when he said that we should have a civilian national security force as strong as the military. This idea does sound kind of scary to me and I'd like some answers or at least discussion.

In the middle of Camilla Parker-Bowles-Windsor's performance? I wondered why Charles liked her.

(I think this is an epic Hijack)

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/RTBrooke/hijack.gif

Okay, that's enough of that. I'd like to try to keep this thread on a slightly serious track and not get bogged down with spam. I really do want to know what Obama meant when he said that we should have a civilian national security force as strong as the military. This idea does sound kind of scary to me and I'd like some answers or at least discussion.

It sounds a bit scary to me, as well. Makes me think of the Roman Praetorian Guard - basically the Emperor's own troops and bodyguard - who, in the later days of the Roman Empire, literally decided who was going to rule.

(but I still want to be President)

I wonder if he's talking about State Militias. I mean, it fits. A civilian national security force in the very rough mold of the National Guard. Just have states standardize them, train them, and equip them to some extend, and you have a ready made force for disaster relief and such, that can't be deployed overseas.

I wonder if he's talking about State Militias. I mean, it fits. A civilian national security force in the very rough mold of the National Guard. Just have states standardize them, train them, and equip them to some extend, and you have a ready made force for disaster relief and such, that can't be deployed overseas.
Maybe but presidents don't control state governments. This sounded like a federal organization to me and it sounded like it was for "national security" not disaster relief. And the 1903 Militia Act organized state militias into the current National Guard so this seems like it would be seperate.

I'm hoping he clears this up at some point, especially if he intends to actually go through with it instead of change his position.

Maybe but presidents don't control state governments. This sounded like a federal organization to me and it sounded like it was for "national security" not disaster relief. And the 1903 Militia Act organized state militias into the current National Guard so this seems like it would be seperate.

I'm hoping he clears this up at some point, especially if he intends to actually go through with it instead of change his position.

Not nessesairly. The Militia act divided federally controlled militias into both the Organized and Unorganized Militias. They say nothing about state militias. 20 states (plus Puerto Rico) still have de jure Militias, and many of them are active.

When Obama says National Security, it strikes me as not being about the typical definition, defending the country against man made threats. I think he might be talking about defense from other threats. Take the fires in California, for instence. I know that a few hundred members of the CSMR were called up to help fight them. Take the concept, and expand on it through standards and training. You have a ready made, local force ready to combat any "National Security" threat, man made or natural.

When Obama says National Security, it strikes me as not being about the typical definition, defending the country against man made threats. I think he might be talking about defense from other threats. Take the fires in California, for instence. I know that a few hundred members of the CSMR were called up to help fight them. Take the concept, and expand on it through standards and training. You have a ready made, local force ready to combat any "National Security" threat, man made or natural.

Yehbut, there isn't like there is a huge disaster relief gap in the US. It certainly wouldn't need something "just as powerful, just as well funded" as the US military to make up the difference.

I really think he should clarify what this is all about.

I think we should bring back Militias...

You cant just go off to war every chance you get when your standing army's only 10-50,000 strong, Total...

We dont need to mobilize numbers higher than that unless we actually ARE attacked...

We could go hit Afghanistan after 9-11, but itd make stupid shit like the Iraq War a really difficult proposition...

Think about it, we were insanely successful up until the end of WWII things started kinda goin down hill afterwards...which coincides with us having a large standing Army...

Perhaps thats what a "Civilian National Security Force" means...

Yehbut, there isn't like there is a huge disaster relief gap in the US. It certainly wouldn't need something "just as powerful, just as well funded" as the US military to make up the difference.

I really think he should clarify what this is all about.

yeah we dont need to fix our Disaster Relief at all...*looks around his home area*...*and laughs* lol...

yeah we dont need to fix our Disaster Relief at all...*looks around his home area*...*and laughs* lol...

You don't need something as big as the US military. Which is the point. No-where near as big.

And the fact is that disaster relief works pretty well in most parts of the US.

You don't need something as big as the US military. Which is the point. No-where near as big.

And the fact is that disaster relief works pretty well in most parts of the US.

Maybe not as big, but comparably Funded...

I dont think thats what he meant anyway though...

To quote myself, I think this may be closer....

"I think we should bring back Militias...

You cant just go off to war every chance you get when your standing army's only 10-50,000 strong, Total...

We dont need to mobilize numbers higher than that unless we actually ARE attacked...

We could go hit Afghanistan after 9-11, but itd make stupid shit like the Iraq War a really difficult proposition...

Think about it, we were insanely successful up until the end of WWII things started kinda goin down hill afterwards...which coincides with us having a large standing Army...

Perhaps thats what a "Civilian National Security Force" means... "

I don't understand why everyone is ignoring the obvious

I assumed that 'civilian national security force' = CIA, NSA, other intelligence agencies, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, DEA, FEMA, fire departments, state & local police, and other agencies we already have in place

I don't understand why everyone is ignoring the obvious

I assumed that 'civilian national security force' = CIA, NSA, other intelligence agencies, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, DEA, FEMA, fire departments, state & local police, and other agencies we already have in place

Oh lord. I hope he doesn't try combining them. If he could ever get them to work together as a team, it would be dangerous as Hell.

Oh lord. I hope he doesn't try combining them. If he could ever get them to work together as a team, it would be dangerous as Hell.

True that. Government incompetence and corruption is the only thing that stands between the US and totalitarianism. Can you imagine the nightmare if the US government actually started to function effectively?

I don't understand why everyone is ignoring the obvious

I assumed that 'civilian national security force' = CIA, NSA, other intelligence agencies, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, DEA, FEMA, fire departments, state & local police, and other agencies we already have in place
Yeah that's what I thought he meant. He simply doesn't buy into this 'war on terror' stuff which posits a primary role for the military. He simply thinks 'terrorism' is a crime to be handled by civilian intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and when this strategy was employed after 9/11 (before Iraq) it was working excellently, it wasn't until Iraq that things went down hill.

Isn't the national guard part of the military tho'?

Yes, 40-50% of the troops in Iraq at any given time are National Guard.

If it's nothing more than a National Guard that can't be legally deployed overseas, I'll be happy with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Something like that?

I wonder if he's talking about State Militias. I mean, it fits. A civilian national security force in the very rough mold of the National Guard. Just have states standardize them, train them, and equip them to some extend, and you have a ready made force for disaster relief and such, that can't be deployed overseas.

That was my thought as well.

You don't need something as big as the US military.

What if the military were made much, much smaller?

American military culture sucks, it's elitist and hierarchical as all hell, which is why all the ranks are separated, so those sending people to die and those being sent to die have as little contact as possible.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard..

Eh, sounds like a group designed just for abusing the patriot act.

Homeland spying in the name of stopping terrorism.

American military culture sucks, it's elitist and hierarchical as all hell, which is why all the ranks are separated, so those sending people to die and those being sent to die have as little contact as possible.

How dare a military institution have ranks and hierarchies. Not to mention this is a completely ignorant view of the US military but that never stopped the Commie from spouting off about it.

The following video is an excerpt from a speech delivered in Colorado Springs, CO on July 2, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4
The whole speech is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

What does he mean when he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."? I know that he outlined some stuff about the Peace Corp and other stuff before he said this but this bit about the national security force wasn't really clarified. I hate to say it but these Obama Rangers almost sound like an American version of the Sturmabteilung.

Did he clarify this statement later or change his mind?

Obama doesn't need to clarify. You should concentrate on the hope and change, not the jackboots who will enforce security. Obama is given free pass to say anything he wishes without explanation. The media is firmly in his pocket.

Yehbut, there isn't like there is a huge disaster relief gap in the US. It certainly wouldn't need something "just as powerful, just as well funded" as the US military to make up the difference.

I really think he should clarify what this is all about.

This is true, but it's difficult to see through all the hyperbole. Who knows what he really wants. I was just throwing out an idea.

Was I the only one who started thinking this was a plot to re-establish the militias discussed in the 2nd Amendment in the biggest gun control attempt ever?

I knew Obama was an ultra-liberal, but that's a bit too far I think... maybe...

The media is firmly in his pocket.
Yup, especially all the media that criticise him.

Hello Big Brother.

Hello Big Brother.

http://de027.k12.sd.us/Pictures/1984-Big-Brother-Poster.jpg

He says hi.:tongue:

Holy crap. Did anyone watch anything other than the 17 second clip? He's talking about Peace Corps and Americorps. That's what the previous five minutes of the speech are about. He mentions how his wife quit a job at a law firm to work at Americorps, and how it's too small currently. He wants to expand both organizations to increase diplomacy and the like.

Good lord. The SS? You've all got to be shitting me.

No idea. At all.

Some kind of police, plus the fire brigade, ambulances etc. combined into one force?

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard..

Clearly you haven't read his other comments.


As for Obama: aren't organizations like the CIA or FBI 'defense' organizations? I see no reason why there couldn't be a Civilian CIA like agency or such, to help with the defense of America.

Clearly you haven't read his other comments.


As for Obama: aren't organizations like the CIA or FBI 'defense' organizations? I see no reason why there couldn't be a Civilian CIA like agency or such, to help with the defense of America.

The CIA is already a civilian agency given that they are not part of the military.

The CIA is already a civilian agency given that they are not part of the military.

Yet the Director of the CIA is an Air Force General....

Yet the Director of the CIA is an Air Force General....

That position was unrelated though (not to mention he just retired from the Air Force in July).

EDIT: He is also only the sixth person in history to be director of the CIA while also an active member of the military.

Was I the only one who started thinking this was a plot to re-establish the militias discussed in the 2nd Amendment in the biggest gun control attempt ever?

I knew Obama was an ultra-liberal, but that's a bit too far I think... maybe...

Gun control is not in any way, shape, or form, liberal.

Gun control is not in any way, shape, or form, liberal.
Indeed.

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/wp-content/uploads/gun_control_works21.jpg
I don't think that they were very liberal, eh?

Yup, especially all the media that criticise him.

Who, besides those evil overlords at FOX? CNN? MSNBC? ABC? CBS? NBC? BBC? NYT? The American, and most foreign, mainstream media can't wait to pucker their lips on Obama's ass.

Boo hoo. It's a historic campaign with a charismatic candidate. Things like that tend to get coverage.

Who, besides those evil overlords at FOX?
Just look at the flak Obama's received over his support for the FISA:

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/obamas-fisa-quandary_b_110799.html).

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html)

ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obamas-fisa-shi.html).

Washinton Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html).

Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/netroots-activi.html)

Hardly bastions of the conservative right.

In context, it seems pretty obvious. He's talking about all sorts of things, from those who work on infrastructure to teachers to the Peace Corps.

The problem here is the narrow viewpoint of "national security" = bombs and guns. Obama's position is that we can't just wave guns around and/or send our military around the world to achieve national security. We need better infrastructure, a more educated populace, less dependence on oil, and more diplomatic/aid-based representatives abroad.

I hate to crash your party... but you guys need to do a bit more research before invoking religious & political extremes. The national security force is actually a robust series of good will volunteer programs intended to improve the image of America and the quality of life through volunteer service both at home and abroad.

"He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps."
source below
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

There's the straight answer you asked for, hopefully that will make you this thread rethink some of the extreme conclusions it jumped to without any justification at all.

*gun control post with dictators*
Uhu.

Not exactly living under a brutal dictatorship in the UK, and we have just about the strongest gun control in the world.

Indeed.

*snip*
I don't think that they were very liberal, eh?

Hitler, incidentally, loosened gun control laws.

Uhu.

Not exactly living under a brutal dictatorship in the UK, and we have just about the strongest gun control in the world.

Why do you think you bunch haven't rebelled yet?;):tongue:

Nah, kidding of course. But were a dictator ever to seize power...

Uhu.

Not exactly living under a brutal dictatorship in the UK, and we have just about the strongest gun control in the world.

I don't know.

I felt very oppressed when I was forced to pay a 40p library fine the other day.

Hitler, incidentally, loosened gun control laws.

Source?

In context, it seems pretty obvious. He's talking about all sorts of things, from those who work on infrastructure to teachers to the Peace Corps.

The problem here is the narrow viewpoint of "national security" = bombs and guns. Obama's position is that we can't just wave guns around and/or send our military around the world to achieve national security. We need better infrastructure, a more educated populace, less dependence on oil, and more diplomatic/aid-based representatives abroad.

Yes, thank you. That's what I said, but now maybe someone will listen.

Ludicrous.

Why do you think you bunch haven't rebelled yet?;):tongue:

Nah, kidding of course. But were a dictator ever to seize power...

The civilian population would manifestly fail to take him out, just like every single time in recorded history that a dictator seized power. It's never the civilians who get him, no matter how well armed. It's his own men. It's his guard.

Source?

Here. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html) It's a neat site.

He's more than likely just talking out of his ass. The only promise more insincere and easily broken than 'I'll pull out, honest' is 'If elected, I promise to...' I don't think even The Blessed St. Obama is an exception to that.

Of course, if he does go through with it, it'll give the sad cop groupies something to do besides become mall cops or join the TSA.

So now Obama is a closet Muslim Nazi with a Whitey-Hating Christian Pastor?

..and a Feminazi "baby mama" 'terrorist fist bumping' wife.

Presumably this will be an elite force of Afro wearing "black" men and white liberals, who will enslave and pollute the "silent majority", while "socialising" medicine, and changing the US flag to a picture of Che Guevara smoking a spliff on a camel heading to mecca.

I am baffled by what, exactly, he is proposing. Does he mean, like, the police, or something?

obama plans to disarm 50% of the military and deploy them with signs in the US saying please dont terrorize us.

So I don't get it, are they stormtroopers or a hippy protest squad? Is Obama a wimpy peacenik or a deadly Fuehrer-elect? The right wing search for a way to define, categorize, and package him continues...

I am baffled by what, exactly, he is proposing. Does he mean, like, the police, or something?

I'm sure the police force, firefighters, etc. are certainly part of what he is talking about.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13877863&postcount=74

Is Obama a wimpy peacenik or a deadly Fuehrer-elect?
He's a deadly wimpy peacenik Fuehrer! He'll convert us all to atheistic Islam!

Here. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html) It's a neat site.

Very interesting. Thank you. *Reminds self to take eraser to Hitler in that picture*

Just look at the flak Obama's received over his support for the FISA:

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/obamas-fisa-quandary_b_110799.html).

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html)

ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obamas-fisa-shi.html).

Washinton Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html).

Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/netroots-activi.html)

Hardly bastions of the conservative right.

Wow. He supported FISA. What a beast! I stand corrected. The media are just tearing this guy apart!

The civilian population would manifestly fail to take him out, just like every single time in recorded history that a dictator seized power. It's never the civilians who get him, no matter how well armed. It's his own men. It's his guard.
See: The American Revolution

See: The American Revolution

Dictator seizing power?

Dictator seizing power?

Rich white slave-owning capitalists seizing power.

Rich white slave-owning capitalists seizing power.

First time I ever agree with you. I think the sky may be falling.

I stand corrected. The media are just tearing this guy apart!
Some parts are, particularly those representing the libertarian left.

You wanted an example of a section of the media not belonging to the FOX network criticising Obama. I gave you one.

As you say, you stand corrected.

See: The American Revolution

Well...most of the leadership had served in the British Army...and alot of them had been British Governors and Politicians...

Well quite. And there really isn't any need for a civilian security force in the US. If he wants to beef up the peace corp. and send 100,000s of miscreants overseas to do whatever they do in third world countries, I'm fine with that. Not too happy with the idea of a paramilitary federal force with a budget of 400,000 billion tasked with internal civilian security.

He really should sketch out what he means more fully.

Shoot, if he's serious (which again, I highly doubt) the expenditures involved would push military and ancillary military spending up to around 10% of GDP...that's getting in to regular Eastern Bloc territory. In fact, it would mean the US spending several times more on its armed forces than the entire rest of the world.

Shoot, if he's serious (which again, I highly doubt) the expenditures involved would push military and ancillary military spending up to around 10% of GDP...that's getting in to regular Eastern Bloc territory. In fact, it would mean the US spending several times more on its armed forces than the entire rest of the world.

Well, if we want to be the world's police force, we'll have to do that, won't we. I'm not against defense spending, but damn.

See: The American Revolution

I don't know what reality you live in, but the one I'm familiar with did not result in the death of King George III. It also doesn't feature him seizing power.

Holy crap. Did anyone watch anything other than the 17 second clip? He's talking about Peace Corps and Americorps. That's what the previous five minutes of the speech are about. He mentions how his wife quit a job at a law firm to work at Americorps, and how it's too small currently. He wants to expand both organizations to increase diplomacy and the like.

Good lord. The SS? You've all got to be shitting me.
Actually I mentioned that in the OP. I said "I know that he outlined some stuff about the Peace Corp and other stuff before he said this but this bit about the national security force wasn't really clarified." I did watch the entire speech before posting this. I'm not really opposed to expanding the Peace Corp, I think we do need to do more in the way of humanitarian aid, I just think that it'd be nice if that helping hand included our farming and biotechnology. The thing is that the Peace Corp is not a national security organization, it's for foreign aid and maybe diplomacy because it's supposed to improve relations with poor nations and show we care. This is something different unless the Peace Corp are going to start being issued tanks and battle rifles.

Okay, that's enough of that. I'd like to try to keep this thread on a slightly serious track and not get bogged down with spam. I really do want to know what Obama meant when he said that we should have a civilian national security force as strong as the military. This idea does sound kind of scary to me and I'd like some answers or at least discussion.
You opened this thread with a Nazi comparison, and you claim you want to be taken seriously? Now I know you're joking.

Here, I'll repeat it a third time:
In context, it seems pretty obvious. He's talking about all sorts of things, from those who work on infrastructure to teachers to the Peace Corps.

The problem here is the narrow viewpoint of "national security" = bombs and guns. Obama's position is that we can't just wave guns around and/or send our military around the world to achieve national security. We need better infrastructure, a more educated populace, less dependence on oil, and more diplomatic/aid-based representatives abroad.
for truth.

It would be refreshing if other people in this thread paid attention to what Dem said, and maybe even to what Obama actually says, instead of wildly fantasizing based on sound bites of less than a minute.

..and a Feminazi "baby mama" 'terrorist fist bumping' wife.

Presumably this will be an elite force of Afro wearing "black" men and white liberals, who will enslave and pollute the "silent majority", while "socialising" medicine, and changing the US flag to a picture of Che Guevara smoking a spliff on a camel heading to mecca.
He's got my vote. :D

It would be refreshing if other people in this thread paid attention to what Dem said, and maybe even to what Obama actually says, instead of wildly fantasizing based on sound bites of less than a minute.


Because that's not what he said. That's what you are assuming that he means. It is not unreasonable to expect some type of clarification about what this plan actually entails, especially when considering the proposed cost. Especially when there is no obvious connection between a civilian defense force and higher education or infrastructure projects.

Because that's not what he said. That's what you are assuming that he means. It is not unreasonable to expect some type of clarification about what this plan actually entails, especially when considering the proposed cost. Especially when there is no obvious connection between a civilian defense force and higher education or infrastructure projects.
Exactly. I would prefer clarification on this one point. I understand that he said that he wants to expand the Peace Corp and I'm not opposed to that. What he did say was that he wants a national security force just as well funded as the military. This implies that it is seperate from the military. Because he's running for the presidency it is implied that this would be a federal entity. An civilian organization just as well equipped as the military for national security sounds like a paramilitary and there is potential for abuse there. This is why I want clarification.

I doubt he means business and he's just saying and doing anything he can to get elected but if he does intend to actually follow through with this it seems like a good idea to demand that he explain in detail what he means here strictly because of the price of this proposal. Hundreds of billions are spent on the US military, if someone wants to pay that much for anything they better do more than a 17 second soundbite. I would like a detailed explanation from the candidate on what exactly this national security force would be, a description of its mission(s) and methods, and an itemized list of expenses. I don't think that's too much to ask and I don't want to hear it from an aide.

Actually I mentioned that in the OP. I said "I know that he outlined some stuff about the Peace Corp and other stuff before he said this but this bit about the national security force wasn't really clarified." I did watch the entire speech before posting this. I'm not really opposed to expanding the Peace Corp, I think we do need to do more in the way of humanitarian aid, I just think that it'd be nice if that helping hand included our farming and biotechnology. The thing is that the Peace Corp is not a national security organization, it's for foreign aid and maybe diplomacy because it's supposed to improve relations with poor nations and show we care. This is something different unless the Peace Corp are going to start being issued tanks and battle rifles.

And there's the narrow viewpoint I was talking about. Our national security is not all about weapons and fighters. Aid, diplomacy, foreign relations, infrastructure, etc. - these things are all part and parcel of ensuring security.


Because that's not what he said. That's what you are assuming that he means.

It's called context. Between the context of the speech itself and the stated positions of Obama, it really isn't very hard to figure out.

You really have to take those 17 seconds in a vacuum not to understand it.

It is not unreasonable to expect some type of clarification about what this plan actually entails, especially when considering the proposed cost.

Clarification is one thing. Acting like there's absolutely nothing to go on is quite another.

Especially when there is no obvious connection between a civilian defense force and higher education or infrastructure projects.

Actually, he said "Civilian national security force."

And, again, if you take the stance that national security requires much more than bombs and guns (as Obama quite clearly does), the connection is clear.

It's called context. Between the context of the speech itself and the stated positions of Obama, it really isn't very hard to figure out.

You really have to take those 17 seconds in a vacuum not to understand it.

Clarification is one thing. Acting like there's absolutely nothing to go on is quite another.

Actually, he said "Civilian national security force."

And, again, if you take the stance that national security requires much more than bombs and guns (as Obama quite clearly does), the connection is clear.

I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation. But it's too big an issue to let slide on context alone if the specific statements weren't crystal clear IMO.

And actually, I don't like the expansive view of national security. It distorts the debate too much. If he wants to spend more money on education, fine. But lets make it a debate about education, not national security. Hell, national security got us those suburbs that everyone hates so much.

Thank you for the explanations, people who spoke about the Peace Corps and the like. I was actually briefly concerned by this, though I knew--unlike some here, apparently--that there was a rational explanation. If Obama were the sort of fascist they're painting him as, his politics would be quite different.

Thank you for the explanations, people who spoke about the Peace Corps and the like. I was actually briefly concerned by this, though I knew--unlike some here, apparently--that there was a rational explanation. If Obama were the sort of fascist they're painting him as, his politics would be quite different.

Yeah, well, Nu-Labour didn't exactly come out and say they were planning on creating a surveillance society/bankrupting the UK in '97 either. Nothing wrong with being skeptical and pinning people down.

Yeah, well, Nu-Labour didn't exactly come out and say they were planning on creating a surveillance society/bankrupting the UK in '97 either. Nothing wrong with being skeptical and pinning people down.

I didn't say there was. But there's a difference between being skeptical and calling what Obama was talking about a second Schuztstaffel.

Thank you for the explanations, people who spoke about the Peace Corps and the like. I was actually briefly concerned by this, though I knew--unlike some here, apparently--that there was a rational explanation. If Obama were the sort of fascist they're painting him as, his politics would be quite different.

=)

I think the issue is that people think different things when they hear words like "national security" and "service". For many people, those things are inextricably tied to "military." But it's clear that this isn't true to Obama.

As further reference:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

I didn't say there was. But there's a difference between being skeptical and calling what Obama was talking about a second Schuztstaffel.

Well the Schuzstaffel thing was a ridiculous comparison, that's true.

=)

I think the issue is that people think different things when they hear words like "national security" and "service". For many people, those things are inextricably tied to "military." But it's clear that this isn't true to Obama.

As further reference:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

He should have just called it service force. National security has a very different meaning in most contexts, so even if it's correct to lump these things under such a headline it doesn't make sense to do so...people are going to immediately associate national security with the police, intelligence services and most of all the military.

He should have just called it service force. National security has a very different meaning in most contexts, so even if it's correct to lump these things under such a headline it doesn't make sense to do so...people are going to immediately associate national security with the police, intelligence services and most of all the military.

...which is something he is trying to change. A big part of Obama's stance is that "national security" and what we need to do to achieve it encompasses much more than brute force.

...which is something he is trying to change. A big part of Obama's stance is that "national security" and what we need to do to achieve it encompasses much more than brute force.

I definitely agree with him on that, but it's not a good idea by any stretch to attempt to make such an argument without being absolutely clear. He probably needs to clarify it if only to further establish his broadened definition of national security as a replacement for the narrower one currently in use.

Because that's not what he said. That's what you are assuming that he means. It is not unreasonable to expect some type of clarification about what this plan actually entails, especially when considering the proposed cost. Especially when there is no obvious connection between a civilian defense force and higher education or infrastructure projects.
Dem made her comments in direct response to an issue raised in the thread. After she made her comments, other people came in and raised the same matter in a way that indicated that they were not aware of what she said. Why? Probably because they had skipped right over it, rather than read the whole thread. This is why she repeated it, I repeated it, and another person repeated it. Is this a thread on repetition, or a thread on Obama? If people paid attention to what Dem said, this conversation would go much more smoothly and much faster because they'd be able to ask follow up questions instead of the same initial questions over and over.

Now as to Obama: The OP and several other people are focusing on one short sound bite and speculating as to what it may mean, coming up with things that have zero reference to anything else Obama has ever said. Other people come in and try to explain it (or explain it away) by only talking about that same sound bite and bringing in some other matters of the military or police or whatever, which we can't even know have any relevance, without the context of the rest of Obama's platform. How much of this pointless chin music could be avoided, if people actually took a look at Obama's real platform instead of trying to construct one out of this one remark embellished with their imaginations? I'm just wondering.

Dictator seizing power?

no, what I was saying was that most of the Colonists army was made of Civilians.

I don't know what reality you live in, but the one I'm familiar with did not result in the death of King George III. It also doesn't feature him seizing power.

True, I was tired when I posted it. Anyway, the point was the the Colonist army was made of a bunch of Civilians who had guns and a sense of idealism/fed up with the taxes/needed money/whatever. The point was, they had no training beforehand other then maybe hunting, and we still won. HA!

We already have state national guards. It sounds like a people's militia in communist nations, Obama's own private army, like Hitler's SS, scary very scary.

True, I was tired when I posted it. Anyway, the point was the the Colonist army was made of a bunch of Civilians who had guns and a sense of idealism/fed up with the taxes/needed money/whatever. The point was, they had no training beforehand other then maybe hunting, and we still won. HA!

Yes, we won. But there was also the small matter of the Brits being occupied with another war in Europe which was, to them, much more important than a bunch of uppity colonists that they felt they could go back and deal with later.

Yes, we won. But there was also the small matter of the Brits being occupied with another war in Europe which was, to them, much more important than a bunch of uppity colonists that they felt they could go back and deal with later.
??? Britain was not involved in any other wars at the time of the American Revolution. Are you confusing the Revolution with the War of 1812, or is the whole period just a blur to you?

??? Britain was not involved in any other wars at the time of the American Revolution. Are you confusing the Revolution with the War of 1812, or is the whole period just a blur to you?

My bad, only three wars, and only one in Europe.

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782) - India
Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780–1784)
Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–1784) - India

see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

True, I was tired when I posted it. Anyway, the point was the the Colonist army was made of a bunch of Civilians who had guns and a sense of idealism/fed up with the taxes/needed money/whatever. The point was, they had no training beforehand other then maybe hunting, and we still won. HA!

We didn't even come close to winning until France stepped in and started training and supplying us. In other words, we only won because our military stopped being civilians and started being a military.