PDA

View Full Version : New Security Force?



code3retrievers
11-11-2008, 09:58 AM
I would like some serious discussion from the right and left, with out some of "fear, smear mentality."

Obama gave a speech where he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What type of force is he speaking of? New Black panthers, or just another type of law enforcement? If it is just law enforcement why do we need something else. Who would control it? Why would it need to be just as powerful as the military and as well funded?

He has been criticized for this statement and it has been said that the Germans had the same type of force. (Fear tactic)

I would like one reason why we need this force.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 10:00 AM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/republican-congressman-warns-obama-dictatorship/

A GOP member of congress says Obama wants a "Nazi like" security force.

Hoosier
11-11-2008, 10:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Sounds like this to me.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 10:07 AM
Could Barney Frank be the next Ernst Roehm?

Terry Britton
11-11-2008, 10:23 AM
Don't we already have National Security forces in Border Patrol, NSA, CIA, FBI, National Guard, DEA, and so forth?

So Obama wants to create another redundent agency to sink tax dollars into?

K.Bullock
11-11-2008, 10:25 AM
I would like some serious discussion from the right and left, with out some of "fear, smear mentality."

Obama gave a speech where he said "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What type of force is he speaking of? New Black panthers, or just another type of law enforcement? If it is just law enforcement why do we need something else. Who would control it? Why would it need to be just as powerful as the military and as well funded?

He has been criticized for this statement and it has been said that the Germans had the same type of force. (Fear tactic)

I would like one reason why we need this force.

I have several friends and family in U.S. armed forces. They would not go along with an Obama dictatorship ..neither would the millions of armed citizens of the U.S. I think they would be smart enough to realize that. Even if that really was what Obama was talking about.

I would like some serious discussion from the right and left, with out some of "fear, smear mentality."

I totally agree , there may be some truth to this that we should be wary of, but I fear the truth will get lost in hysteria and wild accusations that can easily be shot down.The right lost a lot of credibility this past election what with all of the false accusations and e-mails floating around.

There is enough there for Americans to be concerned with that is verifiable and truthful without resorting to manufacture.

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

That is a disturbing statement in itself.

luvalab
11-11-2008, 10:29 AM
Okay, I don't like the sound of it either, and I don't know exactly what he is suggesting or intending, so I will be Googling again today, I guess... Best-case scenario, in my mind, would be that the FBI, state, and local law enforcement actually operate on the same page to deal with potential national security and crisis issues.

Given that the current president and Pentagon have decided that a standing combat brigade is appropriate (see http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/ ), which I find very frightening and apalling and all sorts of other adjectives, it's clear Obama isn't the only figure to see some need for a well-armed response team being in place. I'd rather not see our armed forces placed in that position on a standing basis. Unconstitutional, one would think; and unfair to ask of ourselves and our servicemen, I think.

That said, I don't want some new homeland troop scenario either. Sheez.

I see a lot of letter-writing that will put me (back?) on some secret watch list in my future...

Goose
11-11-2008, 10:44 AM
I feel like Captain Von Trapp in 'The Sound of Music'.

Obama wants a bunch of youngsters like Rolfe Gruber marching around the neighborhoods making sure we're all in compliance.

Buzz
11-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Here is a direct quote from Obama's speech. The comment was in the context of expanding Americorps, foreign service, and volunteerism. Why doesn't it surprise me that these comments get taken out of context and made out to be some scary scary thing. Black Panther security forces? Sounds like paranoia.

I think the Jon Stewart quote at the bottom of my posting applies here...




From Obama's July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Colo.:

Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to 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 all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.

code3retrievers
11-11-2008, 10:56 AM
The right lost a lot of credibility this past election what with all of the false accusations and e-mails floating around.

There is enough there for Americans to be concerned with that is verifiable and truthful without resorting to manufacture.

"

I don't think I agree with our statement. The left has been putting out its own falsehoods for the past 8 years as well. Most of the statements are either unverifiable or have a kernel of truth with the exception of the 911 conspiracies. The left even has had Hollywood helping with the commercial production of movies and tv shows that were playing loose with the facts.

With the advent of the internet it is just too easy to put out false information. Which is why you would hope the "journalists" would actually due their jobs and investigate the candidates instead of being advocates for one side or the other.

code3retrievers
11-11-2008, 11:03 AM
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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."

Obama said it. People say he is such a great orator, then be prepared to have his speeches looked at closely. He said a "civilian national security force" he did not say "peace force" that does not sound like the peace corps / boys scouts or any other current "force". Especially when he talks about funding them as well as the military.
w
I suppose I should put his entire speech up so you folks can read through the whole thing so you don't think anyone is trying to take things out of context. I was speaking specifically of this one line. Even taken in its context it still worth discussing.

luvalab
11-11-2008, 11:04 AM
Thanks for the full posting, Buzz. Much better.

That said, ONE: I hope Mr. Obama has received enough criticism to consider the chilling nature of his statement, even out of context, and that he will continue to; and TWO, I'm still not sure I like the potential consequences of a large corps of civilian volunteers (mostly young and idealistic) who serve the broad agenda of ANY elected administration, this one, the next one, the one after that...

My Right and Left are getting confused again. Terrible vertigo. I need to go lie down.

Buzz
11-11-2008, 11:36 AM
I'm still not sure I like the potential consequences of a large corps of civilian volunteers (mostly young and idealistic) who serve the broad agenda of ANY elected administration, this one, the next one, the one after that...

My Right and Left are getting confused again. Terrible vertigo. I need to go lie down.

I view it all as rhetoric. Remember Gorge H. W. Bush? Here is an excerpt from his inaugural address. What ever became of his 1000 points of light?


The old solution, the old way, was to think that public money alone could end these problems. But we have learned that is not so. And in any case, our funds are low. We have a deficit to bring down. We have more will than wallet; but will is what we need. We will make the hard choices, looking at what we have and perhaps allocating it differently, making our decisions based on honest need and prudent safety. And then we will do the wisest thing of all: We will turn to the only resource we have that in times of need always grows—the goodness and the courage of the American people. 14
I am speaking of a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved, that gets the job done. We must bring in the generations, harnessing the unused talent of the elderly and the unfocused energy of the young. For not only leadership is passed from generation to generation, but so is stewardship. And the generation born after the Second World War has come of age. 15
I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.

badbullgator
11-11-2008, 11:39 AM
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.

While reading what you posted there Buzz I still don’t understand how the Americorps translates into a security force, and a “powerful” one at that. What am I missing? Please help me understand, because that statement is scary. I don’t want a powerful security force made up of a bunch of radical hippies running around. Dosen't sound like he is talking about the peace corps to me....

Buster Brown
11-11-2008, 12:11 PM
I believe in Germany the used to call them the Gestapo.

They were with the government and they were there to help....also.

Buster Brown
11-11-2008, 12:15 PM
Also in Laos and Cambodia they used to be called the Khymer Rouge.

Thanks all you idiots who voted this guy in. He is truely the candidate of change...

Change is not always a good thing...

Marvin S
11-11-2008, 12:18 PM
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I would like one reason why we need this force.

I believe it exists & is called "Homeland Security" for wont of a better term.

Why would we add another layer to the system? Just think of the potential of a group of lefty "idealists" at the beck & call of the those who want to remain in charge.

Hoosier
11-11-2008, 12:19 PM
Just concentrate on the money the government is gonna give ya, and ignore all that.

Buzz
11-11-2008, 12:21 PM
While reading what you posted there Buzz I still don’t understand how the Americorps translates into a security force, and a “powerful” one at that. What am I missing? Please help me understand, because that statement is scary. I don’t want a powerful security force made up of a bunch of radical hippies running around. Dosen't sound like he is talking about the peace corps to me....


I don't know, it might have something to do with this little bit that I picked up off his website under issues/defense.


Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:
An Obama-Biden administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

Here is a good primer on liberal thinking about winning the cold war and how it's lessons might be applied to the middle east. It talks about why we need to throw military and civilian efforts at the problem and not rely only on the military.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

code3retrievers
11-11-2008, 12:38 PM
I voted for McCain, but every time he came up with a stupid idea or said something I did not agree with I was willing to say he was wrong.

Why is it the followers of Obama can never discuss or criticize some of his bonehead ideas? Are you all just sheep?

Do you really believe in everything he stands for?

I asked for discussion and yes I mentioned Black Panthers but I could not think of another organization that I would consider a Civilian Security Force but here are others; the Guardian Angles, Black Water, and I am sure I could name some others from other countries but so far the list does not look like people I want running around my country providing security.

Maybe you folks that think like Obama could give me a few examples of a Security Force that you would be comfortable with besides what we have in place.

Lets see, in in my place of residence we have

Block watch
Local Police
Sheriff
Department of Public Safety
National Guard
Dept of Homeland Security
FBI
CIA
Border Patrol
Other
Military
Army
Air Force
Navy

If all else fails there is NATO and the UN

I believe we have enough Security.

Captain Mike D
11-11-2008, 12:43 PM
I view it all as rhetoric. Remember Gorge H. W. Bush? Here is an excerpt from his inaugural address. What ever became of his 1000 points of light?

Buzz,

I happen to be friends of a couple of middle class ladies who volunteered their time to help children whose parents were in the throes of divorce. The organization submitted their names to Bush for the amount of time and dedication that they had given for the kids and the counceling that was provided to the parents to help ensure that the parents were taught not to poison the kids to the other parent.

Bush invited these 2 ladies (along with many, many more individuals ) to the White House over his 4 years,where each was honored with a dinner and personal time with him and Barbara. They were a part of the Thousand Points of Light of which Bush spoke.

He was smart enough to know that all problems can not be solved by government and that individuals and nonprofit organizations in communities who give donations of time and money can do far more good than the Federal government.

I wonder how long it will take for the anguished, yet to achieve, masses who voted for Obama to realize the same thing.

Neither Bush the father or the son will lower themselves to defend against attacks against their morals, or character, by their detractors.

Mike

Buzz
11-11-2008, 12:59 PM
Why is it the followers of Obama can never discuss or criticize some of his bonehead ideas? Are you all just sheep?

Do you really believe in everything he stands for?

I asked for discussion and yes I mentioned Black Panthers but I could not think of another organization that I would consider a Civilian Security Force but here are others.

Obama follower? I assume that McCain had supporters and Obama had followers...

I thought what we were having was a discussion. I tried to put his comment into context, and I went to his website to find an examples for you. Then I posted a link to help you understand an approach to security that extends beyond the thinking of a purely military solution.

If not attacking Obama makes me a sheep, then I don't know what we have to discuss.

Buzz
11-11-2008, 01:24 PM
Buzz,

I happen to be friends of a couple of middle class ladies who volunteered their time to help children whose parents were in the throes of divorce.

Mike

I didn't mean to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. I was only trying to point out that the thing didn't explode into a huge enduring national movement. I doubt if Obama's push for national service will either.

luvalab
11-11-2008, 01:34 PM
I voted for McCain, but every time he came up with a stupid idea or said something I did not agree with I was willing to say he was wrong.

Why is it the followers of Obama can never discuss or criticize some of his bonehead ideas? Are you all just sheep?


I voted for Obama; I won't clutter things up with my reasons, but you can search my posts if you want to. Suffice to say I wasn't entirely alone in my choice of candidate, though I certainly don't consider myself some part of a landslide. I and most of my friends who voted this way are cautious and skeptical to the point of paranoia, are watching the political scene very carefully and are ready to write, vote, protest, whatever, when we see something amiss with the person/people we've voted for, but a mere 7 days out still believe we made the best decision we could given the circumstances and choices in front of us.

In this thread I think Obama didn't make a good call, and I call it out in the spirit of discussion that you purport to ask for. I say why I think the way I think. I stick a cautious toe in to the pool to try to analyze in an objective way, being careful not to call names even though I am critical of the current administration's efforts on national security. For it, I--not personally, but by extension--receive the following thanks:

1. Get called a sheep (even though I'm going against Obama and agreeing with most everyone here to a degree), by the original poster no less.
2. It is implied that I am not interested in anything but some government handout. (Believe me, as single, able-bodied, employed, no children, I don't catch a break, ever, and don't expect to, ever.)
3. Get called an idiot.
4. It is generally implied that I voted specifically for instituting a Gestapo.

The only thing I can think of is that I'm pretty stupid for even bothering. I mean, for Pete's sake, I'm trying to agree with Marvin.

If those of you who say you want an honest, thoughtful conversation really want that, some of you are going to have to police yourselves better, or you'll be left with the blathering idiots only and never hear a thoughtful, honest person's differing point of view.

I'm going back to the dog stuff, where I'm smart enough not to post most of the time anymore.

code3retrievers
11-11-2008, 01:46 PM
I asked if the left are all sheep? I stated followers because at least on this board you will rarely if ever have the Obama "supporters" take him to task for anything.

Not what he says, his past records on gun control, abortion, past associations, or his tax and spend ways.

Like I said McCain was far from perfect, as all candidates are. I would just like some intellectual honesty.

Buzz
11-11-2008, 01:48 PM
For it, I--not personally, but by extension--receive the following thanks:

1. Get called a sheep (even though I'm going against Obama and agreeing with most everyone here to a degree), by the original poster no less.
2. It is implied that I am not interested in anything but some government handout. (Believe me, as single, able-bodied, employed, no children, I don't catch a break, ever, and don't expect to, ever.)
3. Get called an idiot.
4. It is generally implied that I voted specifically for instituting a Gestapo.



Luvalab, I don't think those comments were directed at you. Most likely I was the target. Obama did not define exactly what he meant by security forces. I'm not defending him, I'm trying to provide some perspective for what he possibly meant. The reason that I watch both FOX and MSNBC, the reason I read both conservative and liberal authors is to gain perspective.

Just don't believe that we're going to see the Gestapo in American anytime soon... If Obama tries it, the left will be his biggest opponent.

M Remington
11-11-2008, 02:03 PM
And the conservatives wonder why Obama won. . .

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

--Congressman Paul Broun, R-GA

This is the kind of lunatic that scares mainstream America away from the Republicans.

luvalab
11-11-2008, 02:12 PM
Luvalab, I don't think those comments were directed at you. Most likely I was the target. Obama did not define exactly what he meant by security forces. I'm not defending him, I'm trying to provide some perspective for what he possibly meant. The reason that I watch both FOX and MSNBC, the reason I read both conservative and liberal authors is to gain perspective.

Just don't believe that we're going to see the Gestapo in American anytime soon... If Obama tries it, the left will be his biggest opponent.

I'm not taking it personally, for sure, as I am roundly ignored by all (thank heaven). I'm just pointing out that the thread was directed at Obama supporters in general, an Obama supporter tried to respond honestly, and the lash of following critiques were directed at Obama supporters in general. I feel somehow vaguely obligated to point out that from the perspective of an Obama supporter, it's not a great way to keep a dialogue open, in the off chance anyone really wanted that to begin with (hey--I've got HOPE, right?).

Okay, now I've REALLY got to rush back to the dog stuff--there's someone trying to do a double T, and they're in trouble! Let me change into my cape and...

Oh. Wait. I don't respond to those threads either.

(Sigh.)

badbullgator
11-11-2008, 02:23 PM
And the conservatives wonder why Obama won. . .

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

--Congressman Paul Broun, R-GA

This is the kind of lunatic that scares mainstream America away from the Republicans.


Oh so your saying they run to Barny Frank. Seems a lot of conservatives agree with that statement....until explained better it does kind of sound like that could be a very true statement

SueLab
11-11-2008, 02:28 PM
Here ya go...

The proposal to have a internal group that is as strong as the military is not a new idea. It goes on now with our enemies...youth are indoctrinated in the beliefs determined to be important to their government which also includes mandatory service to the government.

It is NOT the Gestapo that our leader is proposing but a Youth Corp. Of course this corp would probably benefit from the monies that Ayres and his educational group uses to indoctrinate youth in Chicago...

Here is a link to a Youth Corp in history. It also was instituted by a Messiah...girls were taught to run a strict ship in the home and boys were taught to be strong and to accept those virtues that their leader saw as important:

http://www.shoaheducation.com/HJ.html

Knew a German man whose parents realized what was really going on and he was shipped out of Germany (as were many other young people) to learn a trade. He never went back to Germany...

Buzz
11-11-2008, 02:33 PM
Here ya go...

The proposal to have a internal group that is as strong as the military is not a new idea. It goes on now with our enemies...youth are indoctrinated in the beliefs determined to be important to their government which also includes mandatory service to the government.

It is NOT the Gestapo that our leader is proposing but a Youth Corp. Of course this corp would probably benefit from the monies that Ayres and his educational group uses to indoctrinate youth in Chicago...

Here is a link to a Youth Corp in history. It also was instituted by a Messiah...girls were taught to run a strict ship in the home and boys were taught to be strong and to accept those virtues that their leader saw as important:

http://www.shoaheducation.com/HJ.html

Knew a German man whose parents realized what was really going on and he was shipped out of Germany (as were many other young people) to learn a trade. He never went back to Germany...

seems like this statement applies here:



I totally agree , there may be some truth to this that we should be wary of, but I fear the truth will get lost in hysteria and wild accusations that can easily be shot down.The right lost a lot of credibility this past election what with all of the false accusations and e-mails floating around.

There is enough there for Americans to be concerned with that is verifiable and truthful without resorting to manufacture.

SueLab
11-11-2008, 02:38 PM
No, Buzz...it is not hysteria...history repeats itself and power corrupts...

subroc
11-11-2008, 02:52 PM
None of this matters. This information was available and known prior to the election.

This issue along with Obama’s associations with William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, etc were all known prior to the election and a majority of United States citizens of voting age pulled the handle for the man. The nefarious possibility of this issue didn’t matter.

Lefties that are questioning this now illustrates that they were oblivious to the issues surrounding the man and were blinded by their loyalty to party over country.

Time will tell how much this issue matters.

labdoc
11-11-2008, 02:57 PM
National Security Force? I continue to have this mental picture of a bunch of Barney Fife's running around shoving their single bullet in their revolver yelling "citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest". I could see a bunch of civilians rounding up illegals, arresting the cops who exceed the speed limit, and policing those throwing their cigarette butts outside their car. Talk about mayhem. Does anyone really have a clue what he means by the term?

SueLab
11-11-2008, 03:03 PM
None of this matters. This information was available and known prior to the election.

This issue along with Obama’s associations with William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, etc were all known prior to the election and a majority of United States citizens of voting age pulled the handle for the man. The nefarious possibility of this issue didn’t matter.

Lefties that are questioning this now illustrates that they were oblivious to the issues surrounding the man and were blinded by their loyalty to party over country.

Time will tell how much this issue matters.

Yes...

How easily we are willing to risk/give up our precious freedoms. We, as a nation, have been lulled into taking them for granted and assuming that they will always exist...

John Kelder
11-11-2008, 07:18 PM
My security force isn't new , its the Second Amendment .When the police are just minutes away , and you only have seconds to react ,thank the founding fathers .

gsc
11-11-2008, 08:23 PM
Not an Obama fan, so this may seem strange.

We know that the federal security forces, border patrol, Federal Marshalls, FBI, etc. have never been fully funded and able to do their jobs in a coordinated way. These forces are all volunteer, not draft. May local forces, especially in small town America are volunteer. They also are under funded and not in the loop with even county, state or federal agencies.

Could among other things, he be talking about bringing to bear the agencies we currently have, only with the frustrations corrected?

I don't know, and neither does most every one else. There is room for skeptics, but I'm not ready to have him impeached yet as others seem to be. If he's the devil or the messiah, or most likely somewhere in between, we will see. And I am confident that there are enough across the political spectrum with communication that is available today, that we will hear a wide view of everything he says and does.

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 09:23 PM
No, Buzz...it is not hysteria...history repeats itself and power corrupts...

...and absolute power corrupts absolutely...just ask the current administration.

Plain Speaking Regards,

Joe S.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 09:49 PM
With BHO's relationship with Calypso Louie, its possible that many recruits could come from the F.O.I. That idea scares the bejabbers out of me.

Snicklefritz
11-11-2008, 10:54 PM
Some of you folks 'scare the bejabbers' out of me. :confused:

Marvin S
11-11-2008, 11:01 PM
We know that the federal security forces, border patrol, Federal Marshalls, FBI, etc. have never been fully funded and able to do their jobs in a coordinated way. These forces are all volunteer, not draft. May local forces, especially in small town America are volunteer. They also are under funded and not in the loop with even county, state or federal agencies.

A common excuse by government for poor performance is lack of funding &/or insufficient staffing. My take is - They accepted the job & need to do it. It is in their vested interest to fail to solve the problem, look at the issue from that perspective.

gsc
11-12-2008, 09:12 PM
Marvin, not a supporter of BHO, just suggesting where his mind may be. I do think it is a concern until we know what he is talking about, then we can panic:mad: