Obama's 'civilian national security force'

Obama's 'civilian national security force' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

SILVERNAME -> Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 12:21:02 AM)
Posted: July 15, 2008 1:00 am Eastern © 2008 With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions. For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since. In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "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." Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind. (Column continues below) Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise? What does it mean? If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition? Are we talking about creating a police state here? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601

galadriel2 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 12:34:16 AM)
I think Jonah Goldberg has some very insightful things to say about Sen. Obama. He seems a little bit too keen on getting the public to serve the government rather than the government serving and representing the people. I noticed that Sen. Obama put out an article about new strategies for a new world. It seems to me it is the same old world: people dead in trespasses and sin, God is on the throne, Jesus is Lord, and the devil is as busy as always. On closer look there won't be anything new about Sen. Obama's strategies either - you know - King Solomon said it best when he said that there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new about government trying to get bigger in ever so subtle ways. God bless, Galadriel2

SILVERNAME -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 12:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 I think Jonah Goldberg has some very insightful things to say about Sen. Obama. He seems a little bit too keen on getting the public to serve the government rather than the government serving and representing the people. I noticed that Sen. Obama put out an article about new strategies for a new world. It seems to me it is the same old world: people dead in trespasses and sin, God is on the throne, Jesus is Lord, and the devil is as busy as always. On closer look there won't be anything new about Sen. Obama's strategies either - you know - King Solomon said it best when he said that there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new about government trying to get bigger in ever so subtle ways. God bless, Galadriel2 Yes, its the same old totalitarian anti-Christian ideological nonsense repackaged and given a new and sweeter sounding name. Spread the truth about obama, he wants a police state.

saved9201 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 4:07:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SILVERNAME Spread the truth about obama, he wants a police state. The truth about Obama? He wants to be president. Other than that, who knows the real truth about what Obama wants? - Julius

Sophie11 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 9:06:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: saved9201 quote: ORIGINAL: SILVERNAME Spread the truth about obama, he wants a police state. The truth about Obama? He wants to be president. Other than that, who knows the real truth about what Obama wants? - Julius [:D]! Yeah, that seems to be the case for everyone up for election, eh? But still I suppose since we will never really know what he (or any other politician) wants, all we have to go on is what he tells us he wants so these issues still come into play.

fiat_lux -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 9:34:09 AM)
quote: Yes, its the same old totalitarian anti-Christian ideological nonsense repackaged and given a new and sweeter sounding name. Spread the truth about obama, he wants a police state. OK: first of all, exaggerated nonsense about Obama is approximately as convincing as exaggerated nonsense about Bush. Intriguingly, people have spent years accusing Bush of wanting a police state too, and unless I'm mistaken, he hasn't actually done that. Also I'm definitely not sure what makes it "anti-Christian" either. Indeed it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity one way or the other. Second of all, America already has various "civilian national security forces," if I can use the term loosely. Like the CIA, for example. To see what Obama has in mind, as usual, it's always best to search out a second source, particularly when the first source is one as biased and unreliale as WND. Here's one such source: http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3617703 Now I'm not sure, but it would appear from the discussion at that link that Obama's definition of his "national security force" occurred in the same speech as the term itself, so WND is being a little irresponsible by not pointing it out. It seems that Obama has in mind "teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.” Dangerous work but not exactly out of left field. There are mixed civilian-military teams doing this work in Afghanistan right now. I'm not sure it may be the best solution to every civil conflict problem, but it hardly seems to merit over-reactions about "police states."

cow451 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/16/2008 9:57:42 AM)
Silver: do you ever read anything besides WorldNut Daily? Or do you work there?

Evangel70 -> Lies People Choose to Believe (7/16/2008 10:40:47 AM)
quote: Spread the truth about obama, he wants a police state. I thought it was the neoconservatives who wanted to do away with the constitution and establish a police state. Is Obama crossing over to the dark side?!?[sm=icon_smile_yikes.gif] It never ceases to amaze my the amount of garbage people will choose to believe. WND is worse than the National Inquirer. Next thing you know, they'll be reporting that Obama is really an alien from outer space out to become President so he can lead the initial invasion on earth. This would be amusing in and of itself were it not for the fact that some loyal WND reader would actually believe it to be true. [8\|]

TaoPoohBear -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 10:56:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 Silver: do you ever read anything besides WorldNut Daily? Or do you work there? From the World Net Daily website - Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997. Wikipedia's got the goods on Joe - Joseph Farah

cow451 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 1:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 Silver: do you ever read anything besides WorldNut Daily? Or do you work there? From the World Net Daily website - Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997. Wikipedia's got the goods on Joe - Joseph Farah Thanks. Made for interesting reading. The nut behind the Nut, one might say.[;)]

rcjames -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 2:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 Thanks. Made for interesting reading. The nut behind the Nut, one might say.[;)] He might be a nut, but that does not negate what Barak Hussein Obama said! Thanks RC

jkdjr25 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 2:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 Thanks. Made for interesting reading. The nut behind the Nut, one might say.[;)] He might be a nut, but that does not negate what Barak Hussein Obama said! Thanks RC Because remember if their name isn't good ol fashioned english then they're you're enemy and always lie. The good people at WND never, ever lie or embelish the truth so you have to believe everything they say. [8\|]

rcjames -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 3:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jkdjr25 Because remember if their name isn't good ol fashioned english then they're you're enemy and always lie. The good people at WND never, ever lie or embelish the truth so you have to believe everything they say. [8\|] And that nice little bit of diversion does not negate what Barak Hussein Obama said! It has been reperted on many outlets. Thanks RC

jkdjr25 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 3:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames quote: ORIGINAL: jkdjr25 Because remember if their name isn't good ol fashioned english then they're you're enemy and always lie. The good people at WND never, ever lie or embelish the truth so you have to believe everything they say. [8\|] And that nice little bit of diversion does not negate what Barak Hussein Obama said! It has been reperted on many outlets. Thanks RC and if they don't give the whole quote, which has been proven they didn't by another poster, then they are guilty of baring false witness. If this site also has a history of said behaviour then ther aren't to be trusted because they care more about their insipid agenda than they do the acutal, oh I don't know, news. Nice try though.

Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/18/2008 5:03:45 PM)
fiat_lux, Thank you for link. To some degree it helped clarify where Obama's thinking is on the matter. However, it still seems a bit murky, much like other positions he has taken. 1. How is our withdrawl from Iraq going to finance all that he sees it financing-the national debt, the banking crisis, universal health care, war in Pakistan (to get Bin Laden), energy independece (without ecologically tapping into our own considerable resources), etc, etc, 2. How is this idea supported by the Constitution. The last time I checked the States Department, and the Department of Defense have two seperate missions, not to mention that from my own observation the military already is able to do all that he wants these new people to do, it is just not always their main priority. Even if this idea is put into place, these new people would not be able to go in "alongside" the military in many instances. Granted, I may not be following this election cycle as well as I may like to. I got a little bit tired of the public's attention being directed away from the issues so much. I got tired of being told that issues are not that important because every resource one may go to to find out anything about the candidates is biased in some way, and that the issues/ questions they raise should not be considered, even though it is those very issues/ questions that have people scratching their heads trying to figure out who these people are and what they really believe so we have some idea what direction they may take this country in. I got tired of being told that the issues do not matter because if you disaggree with a certain candidate, or that candidate looses the election, it is not going to be a reflection on the direction he may take the country but it will be a reflection of how racially divided America still is despite the efforts of people, over the past several decades to, make our country as color-blind as possible.

SteveSund -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/19/2008 8:34:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3 2. How is this idea supported by the Constitution. The last time I checked the States Department, and the Department of Defense have two seperate missions, not to mention that from my own observation the military already is able to do all that he wants these new people to do, it is just not always their main priority. Even if this idea is put into place, these new people would not be able to go in "alongside" the military in many instances. It would not be a Constitutional issue. The changes you mention would require a change in laws, not a change in the Constitution. I have heard mention of this in other sources and I would like clarification, but I think it is too early to speculate. There just isn't enough information.

fiat_lux -> RE: Obama's 'civilian national security force' (7/22/2008 10:00:06 AM)
quote: fiat_lux, Thank you for link. To some degree it helped clarify where Obama's thinking is on the matter. However, it still seems a bit murky, much like other positions he has taken. I think you're right that it's a little murky and for what it's worth, I also don't really think it's a particularly grand idea. I think Canada considered this under its Liberal government back in the 1990s and decided, just like you say, that there really wasn't much the new service would do that the military or foreign service or aid workers don't do already. quote: And that nice little bit of diversion does not negate what Barak Hussein Obama said! It has been reperted on many outlets. No, but WND's selective quoting does mislead about what Obama said. Similar selective quoting from other outlets, if such exists, is also misleading.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI