Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,306 posts, read 54,280,850 times
Reputation: 40637
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Good question what do you think of this......heard this yesterday and was floored!
"We cannot continue to rely 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." What is our President saying??
Is Obama planning to have a Civilian Security Force in addition to the military?
Isn't there a prohibition of using the military for domestic enforcement?
9/11 being a perfect example of an expen$ive military NOT providing domestic security, what should we do?
And no, I'm not supporting some ambiguous 'Civilian Security Force', I don't have the answer.
Sadly, it seems the people who should, also don't. And in today's climate it will likely become a partisan finger-pointing exercise in futility with actual national security at best a secondary consideration.
Isn't there a prohibition of using the military for domestic enforcement?
9/11 being a perfect example of an expen$ive military NOT providing domestic security, what should we do?
And no, I'm not supporting some ambiguous 'Civilian Security Force', I don't have the answer.
Sadly, it seems the people who should, also don't. And in today's climate it will likely become a partisan finger-pointing exercise in futility with actual national security at best a secondary consideration.
Sounds like a militia to me, like in the 2nd Amendment, which conservatives worship. Go figure.
In my experience, there are two types of officers in the military.
First of all, to make O6 or flag rank, one has been in the service 25-30 years so all of them are eligible for retirement.
Second, I find there to be two types of officers. One is the leader who entered in order to assume responsibility for, supervision of, and caring for men and women who he or she would be assigned to command.
The others are politicians. Every assignment they seek is to further their career and give them more power in the political structure of the military. They do everything the can to get their tickets punched in order to be promoted or assigned to a position where they can make their mark. And yes, some of them hold command positions throughout their careers exactly because it's expected of them.
Can post more. The Examiner,WND,Blaze etc are all covering it. You seriously expect the MSM to cover it? Not gonna happen. I have seen what people do when they want proof.They nitpick the source of the news etc etc...belittle it because its some "fringe" source...so whatever...give me 1 other reason he would be forcing these people out.
Can post more. The Examiner,WND,Blaze etc are all covering it. You seriously expect the MSM to cover it? Not gonna happen. I have seen what people do when they want proof.They nitpick the source of the news etc etc...belittle it because its some "fringe" source...so whatever...give me 1 other reason he would be forcing these people out.
Because they are incompetent at their jobs, as shown in the number of examples of names on that list I pulled at random. Do you have any evidence that suggests they were removes for something other than that? Collecting a large list and saying "look at all of these officers that have been fired" does not equate to some conspiracy to undercut the military. If you are able to cite specific examples where individuals have been removed for something other than what has been said, I am all ears. For example, why was VADM Mike Varney relieved if it wasnt for taking home classified material ilegally? But as per usual, the right wing media is content just to throw out a statement with little or nothing to support it because their readers aren't about to fact check a single thing they say.
Well believe what you want,and I will do the same. I am critical of Obama's motives even though personally I like the guy...he hasn't been AS BAD as I thought he was going to be.He seems to be a bit power hungry and wants people who won't follow his directives out of the way...
This is the second time I've read this although I was aware of a purge of top commanders. The list I saw was far more extensive than I'd imagined and extended to dozens of military officers.
Something is definitely wrong although I'm on record in saying that Obama isn't behind it, he's just a witless stooge that is being controlled by other persons.
This is the second time I've read this although I was aware of a purge of top commanders. The list I saw was far more extensive than I'd imagined and extended to dozens of military officers.
Something is definitely wrong although I'm on record in saying that Obama isn't behind it, he's just a witless stooge that is being controlled by other persons.
What is wrong is over the past decades the military has promoted a bunch of blundering idiots to leadership positions and now they are finally making the missteps to be revealed as such. Has nothing to do with Obama, or Bush, or any president really. Look at how Rummy ran the show under Bush. Is it any wonder things are as messed up as they are?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
