OK, So the Federal Gov't Wants to Deploy 20,000 Troops Stateside for Security

[longeyes]

Yep.

I'm a cynic.  If they want to "deter" terrorism they are going to need to have some uncompromised conversations with the A-Team in Saudi Arabia.  Right now that prospect appears to make too many people financially uncomfortable.  Collateral damage in these here United States is just another variable on the spreadsheets.

[Waitone]

The chances of forthright and unambiguous conversations with SA are exactly zero, not as long as the kingdom stands on our oil hose pipe and holds huge dollar instruments.  SA could collapse our economy with one phone call (as could the Chinese).

[Gewehr98]

Ok, Longeyes, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from, so answer this...

If (Lord forbid) our proactive stance against a potential aggressor like Al Qaeda fails, and they manage to do something more spectacular than 9-11-01 (which is a very real goal of theirs) will you be all bent out of shape if the DoD and/or FedGov doesn't arrive fully trained and ready to do consequence management afterwards? 

Should we put all our eggs in the "keep them out" basket, or maybe, just maybe, spend time and training to minimize the effects of said WMD attack?

Is the Boy Scout's motto just so much lip service?

[French G.]

There is a giant difference between civilian law enforcement and disaster aid. Plenty of people were happy that my former squadron's helos picked them off rooftops after hurricanes. We've got the people, training, and equipment, we should help.

Any posse comitas action like people on here fear would be pretty messy in the military. I have faith in a great many of the officers I've interacted with to do the right thing. Some would follow orders and take all the guns. Us enlisted scum are prety split, I did meet some that were scared of guns, scared of civilians etc. On the flip side the biggest gun/RKBA nuts I've met, me included, were military. So, if the military gets tasked to take all the guns, don't worry, the resistance will have lots of nice equipment. Maybe a few intact units.

[longeyes]

Where am I coming from?

There are people in gov't I trust and those I don't.

Isn't it obvious that we often operate at seeming cross-purposes in terms of national security?  We get tough in the Middle East and leave the southern border open--why?

Do I want trained personnel available in case of catastrophe?  Of course.  But I really believe that we need to mobilize as citizens, not as sheep with kindly shepherds.

[French G.]

I did mobilize as a citizen, I joined the military!    Really, they don't take your values and give you an armband when you sign up, most of us believe the oath we take.

[longeyes]

Don't construe my remarks as anti-military; they are not meant to be.  I am saying that in matters of national emergency, and everything else, it comes back to empowered individual citizens working together.  Savvy Americans began "mobilizing" after 9/11 whether told to or not by the governmental higher-ups.

[Tallpine]

we can handle D.C. being nuked, but not having a Wii under the tree on Christmas morning would be a catastrophe

Oh, I dunno - I for one would be really sad about the loss of the IRS and the ATF ...   

[RevDisk]

Oh, I dunno - I for one would be really sad about the loss of the IRS and the ATF ...   

I would weep at the loss of the Constitution, the Hope Diamond, the Library of Congress, priceless art, the Air and Space Museum and countless other parts of our country's historical treasures.  We would need to kill everyone within five degrees of seperation of those responsible, burn their land before salting it, and drink heavily to forget what we've lost.