3 ms·

Once again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior. I think we can a

Once again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior. I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020. There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.

hammock 1y ago
> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero “The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
- Refreeze5224 1y ago
  I mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
  - tartuffe78 1y ago
    Portland is burned to the ground friend, I heard it on Fox News the other day...
  - hammock 1y ago
    The comment was posed as “theoretical” which I took to mean they were looking at possible future developments, not the current state of affairs. Would you say for instance that the national guard cannot be justified in response to any riot, no matter how bad?
    - fuzzfactor 1y ago
      Proven by Trump himself to be completely unjustified even if a key seat of government is being invaded by rioters, unless maybe Trump imagines that some emerging situation is much worse than the Capitol was under his own encouragement. Even though Trump's mob was intent on murdering rival politicians, and there were casualties including death, he completely failed to do what was needed to quell the disturbance until it was far too late that time. How theoretical is that? >no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, That's because it's only Wednesday. If Trump goes through with his plan to allow food assistance to go unfunded using the excuse "the well has run dry", the 40 million who depend on it might have "some" dissent that they would like to vent directly. No President of any party has ever dropped the ball bad enough to let that happen ever. Certainly not with both houses of Congress dominated by supporters in the same party. If he really wanted to keep food supplies coming in for low-income citizens, plus the farmers who greatly benefit themselves, all Trump has to do is say so and Congress can have that one item on his desk to sign the same day, no strings attached. Now unfortunately overnight, the entire island of Jamaica is devastated by dire needs, most countries are not prosperous enough to help though. I can't imagine the USA doesn't still have the financial leadership ability to be able to ease more suffering than anyone else. It would be just heartless not to. Well with the nutritional assistance that recipients in the USA have been desperately depending on for more than 50 years, that could be a different story. If they let it run out for Americans Friday as threatened.
dmurray 1y ago
(Not a supporter of the administration but...) It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete. If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now? I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.
- Refreeze5224 1y ago
  The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes. I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
- clanky 1y ago
  > another Vietnam What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?
  - krapp 1y ago
    Do you understand the concept and purpose of the military industrial complex? It is, in no small part, a capitalist enterprise. War is a means of projecting imperialist power, but also justifying military contracts and expenditure. It is a self-perpetuating, self-justifying machine that demands constant growth, so we must do that. We can't not do that. And since the current regime (and half the country) considers the domestic population to be as much an adversary as any foreign one, we're going to reap the home soil. This is just American imperialism turning on itself, as imperialism inevitably must.
    - clanky 1y ago
      We're on the same page here, but just because those are the system's imperatives doesn't mean they must be embraced by the poster I replied to.

hammock 1y ago

> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero “The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?

Refreeze5224 1y ago
I mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
- tartuffe78 1y ago
  Portland is burned to the ground friend, I heard it on Fox News the other day...
- hammock 1y ago
  The comment was posed as “theoretical” which I took to mean they were looking at possible future developments, not the current state of affairs. Would you say for instance that the national guard cannot be justified in response to any riot, no matter how bad?
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    Proven by Trump himself to be completely unjustified even if a key seat of government is being invaded by rioters, unless maybe Trump imagines that some emerging situation is much worse than the Capitol was under his own encouragement. Even though Trump's mob was intent on murdering rival politicians, and there were casualties including death, he completely failed to do what was needed to quell the disturbance until it was far too late that time. How theoretical is that? >no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, That's because it's only Wednesday. If Trump goes through with his plan to allow food assistance to go unfunded using the excuse "the well has run dry", the 40 million who depend on it might have "some" dissent that they would like to vent directly. No President of any party has ever dropped the ball bad enough to let that happen ever. Certainly not with both houses of Congress dominated by supporters in the same party. If he really wanted to keep food supplies coming in for low-income citizens, plus the farmers who greatly benefit themselves, all Trump has to do is say so and Congress can have that one item on his desk to sign the same day, no strings attached. Now unfortunately overnight, the entire island of Jamaica is devastated by dire needs, most countries are not prosperous enough to help though. I can't imagine the USA doesn't still have the financial leadership ability to be able to ease more suffering than anyone else. It would be just heartless not to. Well with the nutritional assistance that recipients in the USA have been desperately depending on for more than 50 years, that could be a different story. If they let it run out for Americans Friday as threatened.

dmurray 1y ago

(Not a supporter of the administration but...) It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete. If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now? I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.

Refreeze5224 1y ago
The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes. I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
clanky 1y ago
> another Vietnam What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?
- krapp 1y ago
  Do you understand the concept and purpose of the military industrial complex? It is, in no small part, a capitalist enterprise. War is a means of projecting imperialist power, but also justifying military contracts and expenditure. It is a self-perpetuating, self-justifying machine that demands constant growth, so we must do that. We can't not do that. And since the current regime (and half the country) considers the domestic population to be as much an adversary as any foreign one, we're going to reap the home soil. This is just American imperialism turning on itself, as imperialism inevitably must.
  - clanky 1y ago
    We're on the same page here, but just because those are the system's imperatives doesn't mean they must be embraced by the poster I replied to.