Obama Wants His Own "Security Force" Equal To Military

[Fern]

"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

^ Sounds an awful lot like he's describing Blackwater USA.

I'm sure he's not, but damn.

Fern

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
The context of the sentence quoted is wrong.

But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

[...]
(5 paragraphs down)

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

You can read the speech in it's entirety here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c...02/text-obamas-speech/

OMG those are HORRIBLE ideas 😉 Obama must be stopped.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what better way to renew diplomatic efforts than sending our annoying college punks to foreign countries to get a tan 😛

linked!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Are you guys having problems reading?

He is talking about the Peace Corps and increased foreign service when he talks about a 'civilian national security force'. He means things other then bullets and bombs can increase our national security, not that he's going to start arming random jackasses in some sort of paramilitary force.

I think to be fair the problem here rests with Obama: To make a statement like this is begging for misunderstanding:

a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Anybody who feels confident enough that they can say they know exactly what this means does so at their own risk.

I don't think most reasonable people think that diplomats and Peace Corp volunteers constitute "national security forces".

Not well articulated IMO; that's unusual for him. I can only surmise that he's attempting to get the words "national security" into his talking points for election purposes. Looks like a desperate attempt to me; one that's bound to lead to confusion.

Fern

Anyone who delves so deeply into paranoia that they think Obama meant a separate fighting force does so at their own risk, as the reality they are paddling off into is one that bears no resemblance to this one.

How is it begging for misunderstanding when it is spoken of in reference to the foreign service and the peace corps? I will admit it might have been a tactical mistake because its easy to take out of context, but any rational person attempting to make an honest reading of it would have to be crazy to think he meant anything but the services he explicitly mentions. Maybe reasonable people don't share that definition of the Peace Corps and diplomats serving as a national security force. That's probably why he used part of his speech to explain what he meant. No wait, that would be rational and non-crazy. It can't be.

Fern, seriously... give me a break. If you think he's talking about some sort of paramilitary force you're as crazy as Butterbean.

There are 3 things he could have meant here:
A.) Create a 500+ billion dollar paramilitary force that would parallel the military.
B.) Give 500+ billion dollars to the Peace Corps and the foreign service budgets.
C.) Fund the Peace Corps and the foreign service to an equivalent level per member, etc as we currently do our military, because they also provide important benefits to our national security in ways bullets and bombs can't.

Now out of those 3... tell me honestly which one you think he meant. Take off the partisan hat for a second and rationally inspect the available information.

 

[sandorski]

Ignoring the whole Peace Corps part, assuming that he means an Armed Citizen force of equal strength to the Military as the OP laments, look at it this way: That is practically Excuse #2 as to why Constitutional Gun Rights should continue to exist! You know, the whole ability to bring down an overbearing Government. If that's what Obama were proposing, sounds a lot like a "...well regulated Militia..." to me.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
The context of the sentence quoted is wrong.

But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

[...]
(5 paragraphs down)

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

You can read the speech in it's entirety here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c...02/text-obamas-speech/

Somethings not right.

The phrase in question here:

"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

^ Does not even appear in the full speech you have linked.

It's not a question of context therefor.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

this thread made me think of this Op-Ed from January...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...opinion/09strauss.html

even if the Peace Corps reaches its goal of having 15 percent of its volunteers over 50, the overwhelming majority will remain recently minted college graduates. And too often these young volunteers lack the maturity and professional experience to be effective development workers in the 21st century.

This wasn?t the case in 1961 when the Peace Corps sent its first volunteers overseas. Back then, enthusiastic young Americans offered something that many newly independent nations counted in double and even single digits: college graduates. But today, those same nations have millions of well-educated citizens of their own desperately in need of work. So it?s much less clear what inexperienced Americans have to offer.

The Peace Corps has long shipped out well-meaning young people possessing little more than good intentions and a college diploma. What the agency should begin doing is recruiting only the best of recent graduates ? as the top professional schools do ? and only those older people whose skills and personal characteristics are a solid fit for the needs of the host country.

The Peace Corps has resisted doing this for fear that it would cause the number of volunteers to plummet. The name of the game has been getting volunteers into the field, qualified or not.

In Cameroon, we had many volunteers sent to serve in the agriculture program whose only experience was puttering around in their mom and dad?s backyard during high school. I wrote to our headquarters in Washington to ask if anyone had considered how an American farmer would feel if a fresh-out-of-college Cameroonian with a liberal arts degree who had occasionally visited Grandma?s cassava plot were sent to Iowa to consult on pig-raising techniques learned in a three-month crash course. I?m pretty sure the American farmer would see it as a publicity stunt and a bunch of hooey, but I never heard back from headquarters.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Expanding civilian foreign service and the Peace Corps is a bad thing?

😕

We all know you think Obama can do no wrong, we get it.

We all know you have nothing to contribute, we get it.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Fern

Somethings not right.

The phrase in question here:

"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

^ Does not even appear in the full speech you have linked.

It's not a question of context therefor.

I said context because the original quote linked the sentence together, and that suggested a different meaning to what he was saying.

If not context, what is it a question of?
ETA: ahhh, looks like a misquote too.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: Fern

Somethings not right.

The phrase in question here:

"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

^ Does not even appear in the full speech you have linked.

It's not a question of context therefor.

I said context because the original quote linked the sentence together, and that suggested a different meaning to what he was saying.

If not context, what is it a question of?

Well for starters, did he actually say the phrase in question?

If he did, we need to see the rest of that speech; only then can we even begin to judge the context.

It just struck me as inappropriate to raise the question of context, then quote parts of a speech where the phrase was never uttered, and point to that as the proper context.

Fern

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
The context of the sentence quoted is wrong.

But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

[...]
(5 paragraphs down)

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

You can read the speech in it's entirety here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c...02/text-obamas-speech/

The quote about the civilian security force was cut out of the speech you linked. If you go to YouTube the quote is in his speech at 16:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

Very telling it was purposely left out in the transcript

 

[BladeVenom]

Will they be wearing brown shirts?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: loki8481
what better way to renew diplomatic efforts than sending our annoying college punks to foreign countries to get a tan 😛

The type of young people that join the Peace Corps aren't the 'annoying college punks'.

Those are the college Republicans like Rove (their former president, how we got his start in politics).

 

[StageLeft]

Just as powerful as the military? I cannot wait to start paying for this!!!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Not a bad idea. Let's combine it with mandatory foreign "peace/aid" service for all 19 year-old high school graduates.

WTF? Are you serious? 😕

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have secret information that Obama wants to form an alliance with the bogey man under Butterbean's bed.

A secret alliance with a blow-up doll?

 

[OrByte]

Obama's new military force is going to be led by Pastor Wright.

I can see so clearly now!!

:roll:

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Will they be wearing brown shirts?

Depends - in Obamas service outfits its probably important that the shirts match the shoes.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: Fern

Somethings not right.

The phrase in question here:

"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

^ Does not even appear in the full speech you have linked.

It's not a question of context therefor.

I said context because the original quote linked the sentence together, and that suggested a different meaning to what he was saying.

If not context, what is it a question of?
ETA: ahhh, looks like a misquote too.

The quote is not in linked speech (edited out) but it is in his Youtube version at 16:40
http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-02-voa15.cfm

 

[Vic]

The OP's intentionally false (to the point of whacked) interpretation is perhaps the most blatant bit of intellectual dishonesty I've ever seen on these forums, and that's saying a lot. But then again, maybe not, as there was that time a couple weeks ago when he posted all about how Hitler just loved teh homosexuals and how all of Nazism was based on it because he used the SA to gain power in 1933. Then when I asked about the Night of the Long Knives a few months later in 1934 (when Hitler had the SA wiped out in large part because of its homosexual leadership), he recounted that whole tale too seemingly not realizing what a fucking idiot he looked like while doing it.

Well, it was about as amusing as when extreme right-wing racists with outspoken agendas of genocide equate a liberal candidate with the Nazis and Brownshirts... oh wait...

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's intentionally false (to the point of whacked) interpretation is perhaps the most blatant bit of intellectual dishonesty I've ever seen on these forums, and that's saying a lot. But then again, maybe not, as there was that time a couple weeks ago when he posted all about how Hitler just loved teh homosexuals and how all of Nazism was based on it because he used the SA to gain power in 1933. Then when I asked about the Night of the Long Knives a few months later in 1934 (when Hitler had the SA wiped out in large part because of its homosexual leadership), he recounted that whole tale too seemingly not realizing what a fucking idiot he looked like while doing it.

Well, it was about as amusing as when extreme right-wing racists with outspoken agendas of genocide equate a liberal candidate with the Nazis and Brownshirts... oh wait...

What's the most blatant bit of dishonesty is that a Denver paper prints BO's speech word for word - EXCEPT for the part about a civilian security force equal to the military.

Its also a fact Hitler came to power with a homosexual (Ernst Röhm) who built the SA (Brownshirts) - which was famous for being full of "Butch" homosexuals.

"But the crucial role within the Nazi movement of the most vicious and lawless types of homosexuality, which Machtan also shows, is even more important than Hitler's personal preference. In 1933, six months after Hitler took power, the distinguished Jewish author Ludwig Lewisohn described what Machtan confirms, that "the entire [Nazi] movement is in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homoerotic feeling and practice." And those homosexual currents inextricably were connected with vicious German militarism long before the Nazis."

NATHANIEL S. LEHRMAN IS THE FORMER CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF KINGSBORO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER IN BROOKLYN, N.Y

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...71/is_7_18/ai_83553874

Homosexuality in the Nazi Party
http://constitutionalistnc.tri...tler-leftist/id12.html


Shake it off Vic

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's intentionally false (to the point of whacked) interpretation is perhaps the most blatant bit of intellectual dishonesty I've ever seen on these forums, and that's saying a lot. But then again, maybe not, as there was that time a couple weeks ago when he posted all about how Hitler just loved teh homosexuals and how all of Nazism was based on it because he used the SA to gain power in 1933. Then when I asked about the Night of the Long Knives a few months later in 1934 (when Hitler had the SA wiped out in large part because of its homosexual leadership), he recounted that whole tale too seemingly not realizing what a fucking idiot he looked like while doing it.

Well, it was about as amusing as when extreme right-wing racists with outspoken agendas of genocide equate a liberal candidate with the Nazis and Brownshirts... oh wait...

What's the most blatant bit of dishonesty is that a Denver paper prints BO's speech word for word - EXCEPT for the part about a civilian security force equal to the military.

Its also a fact Hitler came to power with a homosexual (Ernst Röhm) who built the SA (Brownshirts) - which was famous for being full of "Butch" homosexuals.

"But the crucial role within the Nazi movement of the most vicious and lawless types of homosexuality, which Machtan also shows, is even more important than Hitler's personal preference. In 1933, six months after Hitler took power, the distinguished Jewish author Ludwig Lewisohn described what Machtan confirms, that "the entire [Nazi] movement is in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homoerotic feeling and practice." And those homosexual currents inextricably were connected with vicious German militarism long before the Nazis."

NATHANIEL S. LEHRMAN IS THE FORMER CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF KINGSBORO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER IN BROOKLYN, N.Y

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...71/is_7_18/ai_83553874

Homosexuality in the Nazi Party
http://constitutionalistnc.tri...tler-leftist/id12.html


Shake it off Vic

And you just discredited your own argument AGAIN. Your reading comprehension seemingly can't get past your own twisted ideological blinders.

Hitler used other socialist movements to come to power too, and even cut a deal with Stalin to divide up Europe, but would you call him a communist? Of course not. And why not? (like the answer isn't obvious).

Oh, and back on topic, before WWII, our military was a civilian force. 'Citizen Soldiers' they were called. Like how Jefferson said that the federal govt should have no standing armies, and Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is something the Congress still has to work around every 2 years.


edit: BTW, it's clearly obvious that Obama was just talking about growing the Peace and other diplomatic corps, and not whatever this dread that dare not speak its name you're alluding to. That's how you can always tell a fascist like yourself BB... all the world is problems, dire and dread, except none of them are economic, but of different races and religions and beliefs, and no solutions are ever offered except.... well, genocide dare not speak its name, eh?
When your mommy told you be careful of strangers, she expected you to grow out of it someday.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Not a bad idea. Let's combine it with mandatory foreign "peace/aid" service for all 19 year-old high school graduates.

As long as new military does not mean that REAL (kick-ass) military does not suffer in terms of man power and funding.

I like that idea a bunch. You running for any public office.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Not a bad idea. Let's combine it with mandatory foreign "peace/aid" service for all 19 year-old high school graduates.

As long as new military does not mean that REAL (kick-ass) military does not suffer in terms of man power and funding.

I like that idea a bunch. You running for any public office.

Because the US had the world's largest and most heavily-funded military before it entered and won the largest war in history, WWII?

No, wait, that would have been the Germans.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Not a bad idea. Let's combine it with mandatory foreign "peace/aid" service for all 19 year-old high school graduates.

As long as new military does not mean that REAL (kick-ass) military does not suffer in terms of man power and funding.

I like that idea a bunch. You running for any public office.

Because the US had the world's largest and most heavily-funded military before it entered and won the largest war in history, WWII?

No, wait, that would have been the Germans.

So first you libs say we lost Afghanistan, we lost Iraq, we lost Vietnam, and now you're saying we lost WWII? Revisionist defeatists, what's next?