Reorganizing American defense

5.56X45mm

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Well, I have been looking at different nations and how they do their national defense.

Israel and some European countries.

I believe that the USA needs to really change the way it looks at defense.

Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement in my opinion should be further integrated with national defense. The Department of Defense should fall under the command of Law Enforcement during national or state emergencies.

The military has resources and equipment that could help law enforcement. However, the main issue is that the military is not trained to enforce the law but fight wars. Which is true? However, the current actions being taken in Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming more like law enforcement actions daily. In addition, some nations as if Italy has a Para-Military La Enforcement Agency and within the USA. The US Coast Guard takes law enforcement duties everyday. To the point that the when the US Navy is tasked with Drug Enforcement. US Coast Guardsmen are the ones that make the arrest.

Israel's police are also more Para-military. Many of their standard patrol officers (normal beat cop) carry a rifle with their sidearm. Most of the rifles are M1 Carbines. However, the fact that they do law enforcement task but also backup they the military for national defense.

Law Enforcement isn’t like what it was ten years ago. It has become more Para-military. Today’s criminal isn’t some petty crook. His armed with a high array of weapons. Rifles and Shotguns. In addition, to combat this, law enforcement has armed their officers with rifles and sub machine guns to keep in the car. In addition, the uniform of the police officer is becoming more like a combat uniform. Gone are the days of nice pressed shirt with shiny a leather belt, shined patent leather shoes, and polished badge. Today’s officer wears a Kevlar vest, tactical pants (BDUs), Polo shirt or T-shirt with the word police written on it or a badge embroidered into it, Nylon belt with a tactical holster, high power flash light, and an assortment of tactical equipment in the patrol car along with a rifle, carbine, or SMG. In addition, NBC gear with a Geiger counter. Hell, some cops are also being trained to a level of medical knowledge right below that of a EMT (Para-Medic). Lastly, most departments now have APCs and such to combat riots and terrorist actions. Also natural events like hurricanes too.

I am not saying that tanks should be on every street corner. However, I am saying that the military and law enforcement needs to work together. The current war on terror is being fought on the home front just has much as it is being fought on the battlefront.

I think that it needs to be reorganized to the point that the cadet programs like US Civil Air Patrol and JROTC should be further militarized. During WWII, CAP fought and sank German U-Boats. Why can’t the civil air patrol be armed now? Cadets around the age of 16-18 should be armed and do tasks such as base security.

Once again, Israel is my example. The Israeli Mash'az is another example. Local civilian defense should be done in every American town and city. Civilians should volunteer with local law enforcement and patrol the streets too. Much like the idea of the militia, but it would be well regulated and controlled by the government. The main reason that they would be armed is for self-defense.

As for the military in general. I think conscription is a good idea. Everyone at age 18 should do three years of service in the US Army or US Marines, and if they wish to go into the US Air Force or US Navy. They should do four years. Now if they volunteer. They’ll get a better selection of their MOS and place of station. Also better pay too. Lastly, it will teach the youth what honor, pride, and responsibility is.

Basically in the end, I think that an armed society is a safe society. You cannot live in a open society and be safe 100%. But if you show your enemy that your society is armed to the teeth and that is it hard as hell to attack and get away with it. It will lower the chances of your enemy attacking you.

Nature is the best example. When a dog shows his teeth and growls. The attacking animal will more than likely back down. America should do the same too.
 
I follow you on everything EXCEPT further integration of the military and LEO's. It makes my hair stand on end. Enforcement of laws and combat are two entirely different roles and although I agree with you that the reality for big city cops is that enforcement carries many similarities to combat a further blurring of that line is NOT good for civil liberties et al. I would be loathe point out the very different set of circumstances that have led Israel to blend its forces but the fact is the USA does not face an imminent threat of open combat with forces on the other side of a mere chain link fence.
 
Well, that's why I would put the military under law enforcement control. Posse Comitatus Act states that the military in it's own action cannot enforce the law of the land. But it doesn't state that the military cannot be commanded and controlled by law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus Act
Legislation


The relevant legislation is as follows:
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Exceptions

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include:
  • National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
  • Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
  • The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;
  • In December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.
  • Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
  • The United States Coast Guard is not affected by the act during peacetime.
Homeland Security


TITLE 6 CHAPTER 1 SUBCHAPTER VIII Part H Sec. 466. Congress finds the following:
  1. Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a Posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
  2. Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was expressly intended to prevent United States Marshals, on their own initiative, from calling on the Army for assistance in enforcing Federal law.
  3. The Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law.
  4. Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
  5. Existing laws, including Title 10, Chapter 15 (commonly known as The Insurrection Act), and The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Title 42, Chapter 68), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Already the military has taken part in law enforcement.
 
Insurrection Act

The Insurrection Act is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.
The Act came to the fore when President Bush appeared reluctant to deploy federal troops to New Orleans because of restraints imposed under this Act to quash lawlessness and looting following Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005.[1]
[edit]

US Code

he US Code (10USC331-335) reads: § 331. Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
§ 334. Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
§ 335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as “State”
For purposes of this chapter, the term “State” includes the unincorporated territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.

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

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of the military being used in a law enforcement role. I'm not stating that the Army should be doing law enforcement 24/7 but that the military should take a more actibe role in American defense.

The Military should defend our borders. And when i say defend. I mean actaully patrol them with US Cumstoms & Border Protection agents. Our military is current;y deployed overseas fighting three wars.

1) War on Terror
2) Afghanistan
3) Iraq

No other nation to my knowledge deploys it's armed forces the way the USA does. I don't hear much about Germany having bases in Asia. Or Brazil haing a airbase in England. The USA is the only one with bases all around the world in foriegn countries. Most other nations have their military forces station within their borders. America is the opposite.

Our service members that are state side should take a more active role in defending this nation. I'm not saying that they aren't defending it. But I am saying that more can be done. Manpower is an issue. Hence why I mentioned conscription. That sovles that issue right there.

Also, society in general should get off their lazy and help defend this nation. The Israelis have it though, but it will come soon to the USA and other nations. trust me, it will happen.

And if we wish to keep our society free. I think we need to look to our allies and also our own past.

During WWII, the USA was truly on a war footing. It was killed or be killed in terms of how society looked at it and I think that society needs to look at the current situation like that too.

It's us or them and I'll rather it be them.
 
556,
I see your points, they are very logical, but I was thinking about the Little Rock Nine where federal troops were sent to intervene with the NG, and couldn't help but ponder what would have happened if the two branches were under the same umbrella. I know, this situation is totally bassackwards from your concerns, but I think the potential for a totalitarian takeover is present, under the guise of "protection" and "security."

As much as it may pain me and others to hear, we need liberals, the ACLU, and those who would oppose the system to call for all that noise they yell about.

Another concern I have with militarizing law enforcement stems from a conversation with an LEO buddy of mine about why they don't equip themselves for high risk encounters. He said that the psychological aspect of a clean, professional looking enforcer calms [law abiding] folks, and that the militaristic load out of the SWAT guys would scare people into thinking something is wrong, and that it is not safe to go outside. That is the effect the SWAT guys WANT to project, that when you see men with big toys, don't go outside.


I digress. It is interesting that Europe's most liberal nations have mandatory service for men at a certain age and health, which to me is remarkable, but then again these are small countries with almost no hard line foreign policy (and no means to enforce such a policy). To them, deploying is a non-issue; their countries aren't willing to send their troops anywhere, and neither is their people. If we end up with a mindset like that, conscription would be at least plausible. I'm sure members of this board who are citizens in said countries could expand or correct me on this issue.

5.56X45mm said:
You cannot live in a open society and be safe 100%.
Click to expand...
True, but what is the cost for security? Ben Franklin once said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Take, for example, the Reichstag Fire in Germany (1933), and how that enabled the then-Chancellor Adolf Hitler to seize power from the people without a whisper of sedition. Why wasn't there a civil war? Hitler, being a charismatic speaker, illicited fear from the people about the commie pukes who burned down the central government building, and quickly passed the Enabling Act to allow liberties to be taken away and securty emplaced. He had an ulterior motive, and thus the invasion of Poland sparked WWII. Think how this situation parallels what we are facing today (and have faced in the past 5 years), and how a Nazi-esque society was averted.

I should really stop drinking 20oz Seattle's Best white chocolate mochas at 0200.
 
I'm just going to hit the highlights and hopefully come back later with more:

Military and Law Enforcement are two different worlds. DoD under the command of civilian cops? I'd move to Canada.

What we're doing in Iraq is nothing like a civilian cop does his job CONUS.

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of the military being used in a law enforcement role. I'm not stating that the Army should be doing law enforcement 24/7 but that the military should take a more actibe role in American defense.
Click to expand...

Active military was not used at LE.


Hell, some cops are also being trained to a level of medical knowledge right below that of a EMT (Para-Medic).
Click to expand...
There are three levels of EMT. EMT-P, or paramedic is the highest. Many departments are requiring officers to become First Responders, which is still below EMT-Basic, so they aren't right below EMT-P in trauma care and knowledge. Fire Departments are not long in getting their Firefighters certified as First Responders as well. Some departments are, however training EMT-B, I and Ps as tactical medics to assist in SWAT operations.

The Military should defend our borders. And when i say defend. I mean actaully patrol them with US Cumstoms & Border Protection agents. Our military is current;y deployed overseas fighting three wars.

1) War on Terror
2) Afghanistan
3) Iraq
Click to expand...

Afghanistan and Iraq fall under the Global War on Terror. There are more than two "fronts" (Iraq and Afghanistan) in the GWOT, though.

The whole idea is just a little too fascist for me, I'm afraid. It's knee jerk, and while we should share intel with each other, there's no reason to go overboard with trying to blur the line between LE and military.
 
Last edited:
Maytime said:
I digress. It is interesting that Europe's most liberal nations have mandatory service for men at a certain age and health, which to me is remarkable, but then again these are small countries with almost no hard line foreign policy (and no means to enforce such a policy). To them, deploying is a non-issue; their countries aren't willing to send their troops anywhere, and neither is their people. If we end up with a mindset like that, conscription would be at least plausible. I'm sure members of this board who are citizens in said countries could expand or correct me on this issue.
Click to expand...

This disappoints me! If there is one thing we Scandinavians are willing to do then it is to go boldly with our fellow allies where it is nescessary. We cannot contribute in large scale such as Germany, England and France, but our contribution and support will always be present!

Conscription works in Norway and many soldiers are continuing their military service either at combat school or in international operations abroad when their conscription service is over - we develop many fine and good soldiers with good knowledge of handling conflicts and for us it is legal to say the conscription system is the militarys number one recruitment channel for officers and soldiers on contract in our few, but indeed competent, professional units.

We are only 4.5 million people on this little rock up in the north, but we enter the show when we are needed!
 
Last edited:
5.56 I see what you mean with the Police.
Colombian National Police.

Cuerpo_Elite_Antiterrorista.jpg


Armed and ready to go from a kids stolen bike to a rebel assault.
 
The relevant legislation is as follows:
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but before congress can authorize anyone to use federal troops to place under civilian authority then they have to make amendments to the constitution. This will of course take an act of congress. Then it will take an act of congress to then authorize the use of federal troops. By then the National Guard would have been called in under state jurisdiction (thus negating the need for federalized troops).

I agree with PJ24. This would leave too much of a door for things to come crumbling down around us.

You are talking using federal troops for civilian law enforcement which is what the constitution expressly forbids under the posse comitatus act.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a draft is a good way.
For example S Korea.
S Korea is the few country where conscription is being still carried out.
But there is an important problem.
The young people are eager not to like being drafted into the army and to emigrate.
If the United States carries out conscription, young people would escape to Canada.
And an amateur soldier isn't useful for high-tech war.
Conscription is perfect out-of-dateness.
Question
What is armed society?
Is citizen society with guns?
Isn't that dangerous?
Is it true that a child can't walk way alone in the United States?
The patriotism is important for certain.
But patriotism sometimes produces an absurd situation.
A councilor says so in Russia.
" If a Russian lady gets married to a foreigner, her Russian nationality should be stripped off. "
A reason; To stop washing away to a foreign country of an excellent Russian lady.
 
Last edited:
Well, it was a thought. I just think that the USA needs to really get itself back into a true war footing.

The war on terror will not end soon and our enemies are going to make another strike. I do see at some point in time terrorist Murder Bombers (They're not sucide bombers) hiiting targets within CONUS.
 
I am sure there will be a time when they will try, and in some cases succeed, with a CONUS bombing. I do not see where federal troops would help in that case.

I am not sure if you know what a sleeper agent is, but I am sure there are many in the US. All they need to do is activate and things will go downhill from there.

One person with homemade equipment can do alot of damage. Unfortunately the insurgents in Iraq have shown they are not only intelligent but resourceful as well. I would think this would apply doubly so to any operatives the terrorists have managed to plant in the US.
 
Most attacks in the US will be preventable via the same tactics used in every day LE operations, those that aren't, will be like most LE operations, reactionary (or after the fact). Setting up security, assisting in rescue and recovery, etc.

Allowing LE to become just another branch of the military will not prevent terror attacks CONUS. Neither will trying to force the military to act as civilian cops.

Attacks here will have to be quick and sporadic. There won't be planned ambushes waiting at the local 7-11 for Officer Snuffy and his friends when they hop in mid-shift to grab a cup of Joe.

If anything, the burden of Homeland Defense lies on the shoulders of the intelligence and investigative areas of LE. Yes, we need to be able to act on intel, but not to any level that would require cops to be armed with MK19s and uparmored HMMWVs. Even if we went that route, it wouldn't stop bombers.

We don't have to become a military state to protect ourselves.


 
I think we are drifting from the original topic; reorganizing the U.S. military in order to help support the police and law enforcement agencies in their roles as government.

:salute2: This is a sound idea, but the institution of such measure is contrary to the very cores that the constitution was written upon. The checks and balances built into the constitution makes sure that no one branch of government gains more power than the other. Essentially, each branch is held accountable to another. This idea is carried over into the role of the military. Yes, the U.S. Army would do an outstanding job bringing down threats to the populous. Perhaps even too good. One could argue that perhaps the Army would be more inclined to use more force than what is used by police officers. I am going to school for law enforcement, and we have again and again been tought that under the laws derived from the meaning of the framers of the constitution, the amount of force used on a suspect should only equal the amount necessary, any measure above that is considered punitive. Not that punishment is wrong, but it is the role of the judicial branch to decide punishment.

This aside, the military in our cities give me the willies. NOt because the military is inherently evil, far from it. But instead, the opportunity for a high-ranking military official to begin a 'campaign' against any other branch of government would be largly increased. I dont mean a civil war, instead there are other ways this could happen. In the military, orders are given, and orders are followed. If a commanding General gives the order for a senate member to be arrested, there would be little questioning him from within his command. This would give the opportunity for those with power to effectivly silence those who oppose them. BAD IDEA. :tank: :cens: :tank:

The Posse Comitatus law was written for a reason; protect the American people from a possible takeover by the military. Again, not because the military is 'bad', simply because absolute power corrupts absolutly. No one can be given the keys to the nation and not be expected to use them.

It may seem superficial, but these checks are put here for a reason.:read:
 
I have had training (albeit very slight) in how to manage EPW (enemy prisoners of war). I have also seen military police take down a Marine that was intoxicated and only a little belligerent. It is not a pretty sight to watch. What you see on TV is nothing compared to the way these guys get handled. In almost every case a weapon was drawn, locked and cocked and ready to fire. If the person tried to resist or escape the result is a round fired to kill, not injure.

One of the sayings in the military is peace through superior firepower. If someone shoots at you, shoot back with more intensity, more volume, and with the intent to kill, not subdue.

Put that mindset in the streets of L.A. or S.F. or any other big city and you will have some pretty spectacular firefights. Trust me, the military is fine where it is at and with what it is doing. Let the civilian LEOs do their job.
 
I see where you're coming from, and why some of it might make sense, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Your first point about putting DoD assets under local law enforcement under a time of war makes me shudder. To put a Federal force that is supposed to be used only when several states are involved (unless by Presidential order or an act of Congress) under a local (city/county) authority? Not only does that smash several dozen rules and the Constitution, it would never work.

The military must not touch law enforcement, although I agree it can be used under dire circumstances such as a major gang war (but even then, it'd be the National Guard, not the active duty military). The military is trained to shoot to kill; law enforcement fires only as a last resort. The military is simply not suited to operating in a civillian environment like this.

"The US Coast Guard takes law enforcement duties everyday."
It is their duty to defend, patrol, and safeguard our maritime boarders. Their website mission statement says, "Protect America's maritime borders from all intrusions by: (a) halting the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, and contraband into the United States through maritime routes...". They are a unique blend of law enforcement with paramilitary characteristics and are NOT typical of the US armed forces.

"the US Navy is tasked with Drug Enforcement"
That is not fully true. If you took that from my post on the other thread, you misread me; Coast Guard officers may be present on Naval ships in case they ever run into druggies or pirates on the high seas, not specifically in defense of home waters. It is not the US Navy's mission to intercept contraband, although it may sometimes happen and the Navy sometimes is called upon to assist the Coast Guard.

"Law Enforcement isn’t like what it was ten years ago."
Actually, yes it is. The infamous North Hollywood bank shootout that would seemingly prove your point about well armed criminals happened on February 28, 1997. The first SWAT team was founded in the 1960's, and the first real deployment of the famous LAPD SWAT team was in 1969 against a terrorist organization called the Black Panthers. High powered crime such as what you are describing is nothing new, and law enforcement is able to cope with it, although I do believe they will need more support and funding.

Most policemen today are not paramilitary specialists like you describe, they are still the "men in black" who deal with speeding motorists and petty thieves. Very dangerous situations are still very common, but it is not to the extent that you say.


"I think that it needs to be reorganized to the point that the cadet programs like US Civil Air Patrol and JROTC should be further militarized. During WWII, CAP fought and sank German U-Boats. Why can’t the civil air patrol be armed now? Cadets around the age of 16-18 should be armed and do tasks such as base security. "

I can't speak for CAP, but I can for JROTC. I don't know if you're in JROTC (doesn't sound like it), but the mission of JROTC is nothing like what you are advocating. According to the Navy JROTC website, their mission is
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]to instill in students in United States secondary
educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the United States,
personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment."
[/FONT] Nowhere does mention anything abou military service, voluntary or otherwise. JROTC is not a fully military training program as some people see it, but more of a citizenship building program, to instill discipline, honor, courage, and commitment. The fact that participants get exposed to military life and can decide if they want to join after they graduate is a pleasant side effect.

We're in JROTC as a enjoyable elective class. We're just high school students. Even though I fully support the military and would like to join one day, right now it's more important for me to study for my AP's and SAT's. JROTC is a high school level elective program, not a paramilitary training force, and it should never be one.


"Once again, Israel is my example..."
You can not always compare Israel to the United States like that. We are in completely different political situations. The US has two friendly countries on our north and south borders, and two oceans on our east and west. Israel is alone in the entire Middle East, surrounded by hostile nations that would want no better than to see it liquidated and wiped off the map. Israel faces constant terrorism from extremist Muslim groups. It is no surpise then, that they have a much more aggressive and better armed law enforcement.

We do not have a need to that extent, and so we can not justify stepping up to that level.

"I think conscription is a good idea."
I think it isn't. Many people are already in opposition to a draft, how would it look like if we started a forced conscription? We just aren't in the situation to justify such an action.

Look at the countries that do have a conscription. Israel (I think it does) as I said before, is surrounded by hostiles. South Korea is bordered by a violent, aggressive Communist nation which wants to reunite them by force. Their war isn't over, border skirmishes still happen.

"No other nation to my knowledge deploys it's armed forces the way the USA does. I don't hear much about Germany having bases in Asia. Or Brazil haing a airbase in England. The USA is the only one with bases all around the world in foriegn countries. Most other nations have their military forces station within their borders. America is the opposite."

That's because we have interests all around the world which we must defend. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the United States is the only remaining superpower, militarily, economically, socially, and politically. We can not afford to sit on our hands and wait for the enemy to come to us. We must maintain a presence all around the world to prevent threats from ever happening; it's called projection of power. As I said before, we are relatively very safe because of our geographical situation. By being overseas, we are defending our homeland.


"During WWII, the USA was truly on a war footing. It was killed or be killed in terms of how society looked at it and I think that society needs to look at the current situation like that too."

During the Second World War, we were mobilized in a state of total war against the Axis powers. We aren't even nearly in any state like that today, and we really don't need to be.


About that picture of the Columbian police, if you stop and think about it, they really need something like that. Columbia has been seriously screwed over by the drug trade, with almost all of the money in the hands of the drug lords, leaving the rest of the country poor peasansts. The government and military are massively corrupt and totally ineffective against the drug lords.



I agree, an open society is not 100% secure, but a society surrounded by men armed to the teeth can never be 100% free. We can not tilt to heavily in either direction, but we must find the balance, which isn't that far from where we are today.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top