Can someone explain what Sen. Obama is talking about HERE?

I genuinely hope he's just talking about strengthening the State Department and our diplomatic corps to deal with foreign threats. If that's the case why not just say so - instead of calling it a "security force"?

Or is it something else? Some sort of "Uber Homeland Security" Department? Just as powerful/strong as the military? Wow! *coughBigBrothercough*

In either case, how does he propose to fund it just as well as the Department of Defense? That's a lot of simoleons! Either he's going to slash the heck out of the Defense budget or raise the heck out of your taxes. Or pick none of the above and drive the national debt into the kajillions!

From everything I've read, it sounds to me like the "turn your neighbor in" program popularized in Soviet Russia and brought to America in our "drug war", and popularized by the CPS system that rewards false witness, as well as the Department of Homeland Security.

I can't say I look forward to MORE of that crud!

My neighbor looks Middle Eastern - or Native American, I'm not sure - but who cares; Maybe I can recoup my tax losses in "citizen reward money".

First off I have to ask, why oh why if you are ahead in the polls and supposedly set to win an election would you make a statement like this?

Next, it is amazing that he said it. I was talking with my father the other day. The same man who during the DNC convention said that the treatment of Michelle Malkin reminded him of the attacks on people in Germany pre-WWII. My father is a history nut, an almost non-stop reader. As we were talking, we both noted that the attempts to attack anyone who asks the "wrong" questions seemed like similar tactics used during pre-WWII in Germany.

Now before you go off, I will say once more that I am not calling Sen.Obama Hitler or a Nazi. I'm noting the tactics used here, not comparing the single individual.

So now he decides that we need a "civilian army" that matches or rivals the US military. Perhaps not so odd since most of the military (with the grand exception of Colin Powell) tends to favor Republicans. Could that explain an ulterior motive for a civilian army?

I did a little looking. While my father might be able to quote history I can't. LOL. And I came across an interesting bit at wikipedia of all places. Scratching my head to remember, I found this:

"...the SA became increasingly eager for power and saw themselves as the replacement for the German army. This angered the regular army (Reichswehr) who already resented the Nazi party. It also led to tension with other leaders within the party who saw Röhm's (***The founder of the SA***)increasingly powerful SA as a threat to their own personal ambitions. Originally an adjunct to the SA, the Schutzstaffel (SS) was placed under the direct control of Heinrich Himmler in part to restrict the power of the SA and their leaders.

Although some of these conflicts were based on personal rivalries, there were also key socioeconomic conflicts between the SS and SA. SS members generally came from the middle class, while the SA had its base among the unemployed and working class. The SA were more radical than the SS, with its leaders arguing the Nazi revolution had not ended when Hitler achieved power, but rather needed to implement socialism in Germany. Despite its sympathy for its own brand of socialism, the SA would often pick street fights with Communists and Social Democrats."

The brown shirts. The SA. The Sturmabteilung. Could this be what is meant by a "civilian army"?

Take note: I am not saying that it is nor am I saying that is what is intended. What I AM doing is asking if anyone else sees this as a comparison of sorts or not? I am offering a topic of discussion, not a recrimination. So, thoughts anyone?

You asked for an explanation--it's simple. Obama and the Democrats have been arguing for some time now that the way you deal with terrorists is not fighting them with an army. There are many experts who say the way to combat terrorists is with an International police force. Track their movements and arrest them, seize their assets, put them on trial, and jail them. Military force should only be used in extreme situations.
What he is talking about here is diverting resources and funds that are being dumped into military operations in Iraq that have little or no effect on combating terrorists, and directing that money to build up our traditional non-military police agencies like the FBI, the NSA and the CIA. He isn't talking about creating some new goon squad or arming hillbillies. He is talking about "civilian"--read "non-military"--security forces that already exist.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland_security/ind...-terrorism-worldwide

jawbone

this is saltwater and i am a hillbilly and nobody has to arm me..this redneck hillbilly and all my kissin cousins and friends are already armed to the hills..we dont need no help in arming ourselfs ...but we will allow the free guns and ammo ..my gun vault has room for more and my ammo can is never full enough..

Win the Battle of Ideas: An Obama Administration will defeat al Qaeda in what the 9-11 Commission called "the Battle of Ideas" by returning to an American foreign policy consistent with America's traditional values and by working with moderates within the Islamic world to counter al Qaeda propaganda. Barack Obama will establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to work to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

Barack's going to sick the NEA on al Qaeda! (warning - sarcasm), and those making >$250,000, er uh $200,000, er uh, $120,000 are going to pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by saltwater:
jawbone

this is saltwater and i am a hillbilly and nobody has to arm me..this redneck hillbilly and all my kissin cousins and friends are already armed to the hills..we dont need no help in arming ourselfs ...but we will allow the free guns and ammo ..my gun vault has room for more and my ammo can is never full enough..

Salt, finally something we agree on. Are you bitter or something? Obama says that we bitter backwoods rednecks cling to our guns and religion.

quote:

Originally posted by light chaser:

quote:

Originally posted by saltwater:
jawbone

this is saltwater and i am a hillbilly and nobody has to arm me..this redneck hillbilly and all my kissin cousins and friends are already armed to the hills..we dont need no help in arming ourselfs ...but we will allow the free guns and ammo ..my gun vault has room for more and my ammo can is never full enough..

Salt, finally something we agree on. Are you bitter or something? Obama says that we bitter backwoods rednecks cling to our guns and religion.

Nope iam not bitter i just have a extreemly stong opinion of whats mine is mine because i paid for it with my cash i earned (all in a legal way at that) and i will protect whats mine

and ill protect my family first and formost and i do not have a problem with shooting someone if the step foot on my property or i acess them as a threat to my familys well being..

Possibly referring to this report by the Rand Foundation.
http://boards.historychannel.com/topic/Operation-Iraqi-...orp-Report/510006196

Sounds like a good idea to fund non-militant schools that offer an alternative to those run by radicals. The would necessitate dealing with moderates to set them up and run them.

The current policy of bombing targets, with the resulting "collateral damage" has only succeeded in creating more people that hate the US.

Perhaps he was talking about strengthening civilian security forces inside the US. The police and FBI are NOT arms of the military and are functions of local and national security.

How is this different from the "Bill Clinton School of Terrorist Policy"? How'd that whole "avoiding military conflict to fight Bin Laden" thing work out for Clinton? Oh yeah, 3000 innocent Americans died.

And if Obama will continue to use military force to combat terrorism, where is he going to get the money to give "equal funding" to this other security force? Pulling out of Iraq? Oh, but wait, Obama's already said he's going to redeploy those troops to Afghanistan. Cutting military funding and letting the Pentagon decide what goes? I can tell you it will be either equipment (ya' know like body armor), or it will be personnel cuts - meaning longer harder deployments for the troops that the Democrats are sooo concerned with bringing home.

quote:

The current policy of bombing targets, with the resulting "collateral damage" has only succeeded in creating more people that hate the US.

I'd be interested to hear your theory on why the Japanese and Germans don't hate us and detonate suicide-bombs on our subway over the "collateral damage" of WWII, which makes today's war look like a playground skirmish. If the reason "terrorists hate us" is our military campaign against them, why didn't the systematic fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden produce similar results?

quote:

Originally posted by saltwater:
jawbone

this is saltwater and i am a hillbilly and nobody has to arm me..this redneck hillbilly and all my kissin cousins and friends are already armed to the hills..we dont need no help in arming ourselfs ...but we will allow the free guns and ammo ..my gun vault has room for more and my ammo can is never full enough..

Saltwater, I'm an "old salt", and I have hillbilly relatives who used to let me hunt on their places. I kinda figured when it came to guns, y'all wouldn't be needin' no government handout.

quote:

Originally posted by ParosGearDown:

quote:

The current policy of bombing targets, with the resulting "collateral damage" has only succeeded in creating more people that hate the US.

I'd be interested to hear your theory on why the Japanese and Germans don't hate us and detonate suicide-bombs on our subway over the "collateral damage" of WWII, which makes today's war look like a playground skirmish. If the reason "terrorists hate us" is our military campaign against them, why didn't the systematic fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden produce similar results?

Apples and oranges, Paros. The Germans and the Japanese are both highly structured societies with a long history of compliance to the rules and keeping social order. And here is another difference--following WWII we rebuilt those countries from the ground up. The reason Germany and Japan produce better cars and steel than the US does is the fact that we built modern factories for them that were better than ours, and we brought their brightest engineers here and educated them. That's not happening with Iraq and Afghanistan.

quote:

The Germans and the Japanese are both highly structured societies with a long history of compliance to the rules and keeping social order.

So what are you getting at? Arabs are too uncivilized or savage to live peacefully?

quote:

following WWII we rebuilt those countries from the ground up.

Granted the media has a little bias, but they don't show 1/100th of the humanitarian work we're doing in Iraq. We're not only rebuilding the government and military infrastructure, but the long-neglected education and health care services as well.