Is Obama's 'civilian national security force' a ruse for something far more sinister?
-
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/11/is_obamas_civil.php[^] President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he repeated what he's said before, that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. Obama has been unclear as to what the purpose of such a "force" would be and vague as to what it would actually involve. Wake up people.
-
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/11/is_obamas_civil.php[^] President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he repeated what he's said before, that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. Obama has been unclear as to what the purpose of such a "force" would be and vague as to what it would actually involve. Wake up people.
Colorado Springs video[^] It seems to me that Obama's words are constantly removed from their context, and then speculated on what they might then mean. He says: "We're going to send more college graduates..." Pause "We'll call on Americans to ..." Pause "We will enlist veterans to help ..." Pause "And we're going to 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. 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." Pause I heard this as Obama indicating that he would seek to use diplomacy and 'good works' (i.e. a civilian approach) to help achieve national security objectives, rather than use the military alone. Thus the "civilian national security force" is the Diplomatic Corps, the Peace Corps, et al, and it should be on an equal footing with the military. Usual disclaimer: I am not pro Obama, merely anti paranoia.
Bob Emmett
-
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/11/is_obamas_civil.php[^] President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he repeated what he's said before, that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. Obama has been unclear as to what the purpose of such a "force" would be and vague as to what it would actually involve. Wake up people.
-
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/11/is_obamas_civil.php[^] President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he repeated what he's said before, that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. Obama has been unclear as to what the purpose of such a "force" would be and vague as to what it would actually involve. Wake up people.
See ? My prediction came true. So, I can tell the future. Forget these websites, ask me who is controlling your life. Like anyone would want to....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Colorado Springs video[^] It seems to me that Obama's words are constantly removed from their context, and then speculated on what they might then mean. He says: "We're going to send more college graduates..." Pause "We'll call on Americans to ..." Pause "We will enlist veterans to help ..." Pause "And we're going to 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. 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." Pause I heard this as Obama indicating that he would seek to use diplomacy and 'good works' (i.e. a civilian approach) to help achieve national security objectives, rather than use the military alone. Thus the "civilian national security force" is the Diplomatic Corps, the Peace Corps, et al, and it should be on an equal footing with the military. Usual disclaimer: I am not pro Obama, merely anti paranoia.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
I heard this as Obama indicating that he would seek to use diplomacy and 'good works' (i.e. a civilian approach) to help achieve national security objectives, rather than use the military alone. Thus the "civilian national security force" is the Diplomatic Corps, the Peace Corps, et al, and it should be on an equal footing with the military.
Diplomacy using intimidation and psychology. They will be among us mostly as young citizens because they easily get caught up in this type of thing. This police force is in America you retard, they are an extra widespread level of police, and why do we need military action against ourselves? You are just fucking stupid.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I heard this as Obama indicating that he would seek to use diplomacy and 'good works' (i.e. a civilian approach) to help achieve national security objectives, rather than use the military alone. Thus the "civilian national security force" is the Diplomatic Corps, the Peace Corps, et al, and it should be on an equal footing with the military.
Diplomacy using intimidation and psychology. They will be among us mostly as young citizens because they easily get caught up in this type of thing. This police force is in America you retard, they are an extra widespread level of police, and why do we need military action against ourselves? You are just fucking stupid.
CaptainSeeSarp wrote:
They will be among us mostly as young citizens because they easily get caught up in this type of thing. This police force is in America you retard, they are an extra widespread level of police, and why do we need military action against ourselves? You are just f***ing stupid.
So since you were fired, you've been doing some pretty heavy drugs, is that it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Just like Ilidgit. A link and then a quote from the link.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Just like Ilidgit.
What do you expect. They both belong to the club of congenitally obnoxious idiots.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I heard this as Obama indicating that he would seek to use diplomacy and 'good works' (i.e. a civilian approach) to help achieve national security objectives, rather than use the military alone. Thus the "civilian national security force" is the Diplomatic Corps, the Peace Corps, et al, and it should be on an equal footing with the military.
Diplomacy using intimidation and psychology. They will be among us mostly as young citizens because they easily get caught up in this type of thing. This police force is in America you retard, they are an extra widespread level of police, and why do we need military action against ourselves? You are just fucking stupid.
Transcript: 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. 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.
CaptainSeeSarp wrote:
This police force is in America you retard, they are an extra widespread level of police,
Foreign Service, Peace Corps. Do you know the meaning of foreign? Like, not of your country. Do you know where the Peace Corps serve? Abroad. So, the civilian national security force (Foreign Service, Peace Corps, et al) is not in the USA, it is in other countries.
CaptainSeeSarp wrote:
and why do we need military action against ourselves?
Just hold that question. Mull it over. CSS thinks: Why would he suggest that the USA's military attack the USA? Perhaps he didn't, I'll re-read his post. Oh, I see, the fact that I am obsessed with the civilian national security force being a latter day SA within my homeland, has caused me to reveal my inability to comprehend the written word. Oh, shame on me, Bob will think me so foolish! Let me try and nail this for you. Currently, the national security objectives of the USA are being pursued by military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the success of which are still in the balance. Obama claims that he will also pursue those objectives via the Foreign Service and Peace Corps, growing and funding them so as to provide a viable alternative to the military approach, a civilian approach. Within the context of this speech, "civilian national security force" means the Foreign Service and Peace Corps. All other interpretations I have read are paranoia.
Bob Emmett