RRC Archives

"We cannot continue to rely 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."

Hmmm, a civilian national security force with an annual budget of $500,000,000,000. And "just as powerful" as the military. Anybody else think that seems a little creepy? And not all that "progressive", if you know what I mean.

L Day wrote:"We cannot continue to rely 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."

Hmmm, a civilian national security force with an annual budget of $500,000,000,000. And "just as powerful" as the military. Anybody else think that seems a little creepy? And not all that "progressive", if you know what I mean.

Man, you've passed over into paranoia.

overhung wrote:

Man, you've passed over into paranoia.

You really believe it's paranoid to think that the idea of a "civilian national security force" with a budget equal to that of the military, and "just as strong" as the military seems a little weird? Not to mention unmanageable, and unaffordable (without huge tax increases).

Oh, I get it. You'll be on the security force, and it would be crazy not to trust you.

or we could cut military spending inhalf to pay for it

That cuts the budget for the "civilian national defense force" to only a quarter of a trillion dollars a year, and the strength of our military is reduced by half. That would scare the shit out of Al Qaeda, North Korea, Amadinejad, and Chavez I'm sure.

Still, I wonder, how would this "civilian security force" be just as powerful as our military, even if the military only had half as many troops, tanks, fighter jets, battle ships, and nuclear submarines as before O bama? Really. And what would the "civilian defense force" do with all that power, and at who's direction? Just asking, as no one in the media seems to be even slightly curious.

One more point. If O bama adopted your "spending neutral" approach and promised to cut the power of our military in half, I wonder how that would go over with independent v oters.

Larry:
I checked the video. You took the statement out of context.
http://volokh.com/posts/1216451854.shtml
The context you imply would have been a reason for me not to vote for Obama. "Just as well funded" means cutting military spending and increasing more peaceful civilian based efforts. The math works if $500,000,000,000 is not a constant.

By any measure, "just as well funded" is a staggering amount of money, and "just as powerful" is incredibly powerful. I think we should be asking some questions, and the media should be asking some questions, but that's not happening.

And Caribe, I agree with you and Volokh on what The One is talking about. It isn't like he's planning a gigantic new secret police agency. It's more like the Americorp From Hell, and it's the sheer magnitude of his pipe dream that I find so creepy. It's as if he didn't learn anything from the $100,000,000 or so that he wasted (through the Chicago Anneberg Challenge) in his failed attempt to "reform" Chicago public schools. What he is talking about is ripe for corruption and waste on an almost unimaginable scale.

big deal- we're going from hitler to idi amin- forgit about it- move along nothing to see here- this ship is unsinkable right there ms pelosi oh I mean gilligan

Larry, BO blew that plan out of proportion. Congress will never let that fly, not even an all Democrat congress.

caribe wrote:Larry, BO blew that plan out of proportion. Congress will never let that fly, not even an all Democrat congress.

Yep, I'm sure we can count on Pelosi, Reid and Barney Frank to save us from O bama's dream.