General Discussion

Codeine

(25,586 posts)

22. Tonight, on a very special episode of The RB TexLa Show. . . nt

Reply to RB TexLa (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:03 AM

Jun 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Domestic use of military forces is not an uncommon thing around the world. [View all] RB TexLa Jun 2012 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Jun 2012 #1

There should be an aversion (and there usually is) in the countries morningfog Jun 2012 #2

... woo me with science Jun 2012 #3

Hard to believe garbage like this is posted here DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2012 #4

It's RBTexMex. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #59

seconded La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2012 #65

Well, the national guard is used a lot during disasters and the like. MineralMan Jun 2012 #5

Very true. I just don't get what craziness fuels it. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #9

Or for suppressing strikes, demonstrations, etc. Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #14

The national guard is usually local people who are called up in those emergencies not an army of jwirr Jun 2012 #16

Not federal. Igel Jun 2012 #58

bu$h sent the National Guard to Iraq Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #72

Because if all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail JHB Jun 2012 #6

If someone needs to explain it to you... 99Forever Jun 2012 #7

Notwithstanding the infamous undoing of Posse Comitatus IDemo Jun 2012 #8

Do you have examples of military forces being used against domestic populations morningfog Jun 2012 #10

I do. Igel Jun 2012 #64

What kind of domestic use are you talking about? I think Syria's military is getting a lot of TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #11

Don't expect a serious dialog. This OP is stupid flamebait. morningfog Jun 2012 #12

I just want to know why people oppose it. If we have it why not use it. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #15

'If we have it why not use it.' Same question applies to chemical weapons. We got them.... Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #19

And that mentality.. 99Forever Jun 2012 #25

In what situations are you even talking about? morningfog Jun 2012 #28

If the republicans have it, why don't they use it? See how that works? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #37

Who is arguing against police departments using drones? RB TexLa Jun 2012 #40

Everyone with half a brain. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #41

What other technology do you want to prevent them from using? Computers? Cars? RB TexLa Jun 2012 #42

No problem... we can now safely put RB TexLa's name in the "Give them drones!" column. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #43

use it for what? spanone Jun 2012 #47

Read. Some. Fucking. History. PavePusher Jun 2012 #56

Here's a suggestion. This will help answer your question. Zalatix Jun 2012 #67

Oppose what usage and in what situations, RB? TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #73

You mean like Syria's military? GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #13

Show me anyplace on Earth where the use of military forces domestically is welcome by the people. Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #17

Here RB TexLa Jun 2012 #18

That looks like the US. If it is, it kind of disproves your entire point. morningfog Jun 2012 #20

that is in the US. They were welcomed RB TexLa Jun 2012 #24

So, there isn't an aversion in the US? That is counter to your OP. morningfog Jun 2012 #27

Look at the thread, there is much aversion. The same thing done with disasters can be done RB TexLa Jun 2012 #29

Now we are getting somewhere. You are talking about military as law enforcement. morningfog Jun 2012 #30

Obviously you get rid of Posse Comitatus. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #31

Where in the world is that welcomed by the citizens on the receiving end? morningfog Jun 2012 #32

And with this post, the thread is so stupid as to merit no more replies... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #38

So if you meant 'as law enforcement' why post the off topic disaster aid photo, which shows Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #33

Uh, the National Guard delivering emergency supplies in the US.... Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #26

In Canada we use ours in disaster situations quite a bit, but I doubt that's what the OP means. (nt) Posteritatis Jun 2012 #69

Too many people are stupid and will feel whatever emotions the TV tells them to Taitertots Jun 2012 #21

Tonight, on a very special episode of The RB TexLa Show. . . nt Codeine Jun 2012 #22

. . . RB . . . will drink with her. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #61

A truly fine example of what is wrong this country.... RegieRocker Jun 2012 #23

Uh, not here. And especially not under a progressive President. Zax2me Jun 2012 #34

You might want to read some US History nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #35

Surely someone here remembers Kent State Ohio? cbrer Jun 2012 #36

What's worse is that two of the victims had nothing to do with the protest. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #62

Amen brother cbrer Jun 2012 #71

it is unconstitutional here Marrah_G Jun 2012 #39

Military function is best kept separate from domestic police function kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #44

OMFG. EFerrari Jun 2012 #45

We could probably resolve this difference of opinion with a ncie centrist compromise kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #46

The cops Meiko Jun 2012 #48

I was suggesting they trade in their tasers kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #51

How in the blue fuck is this in any way a progressive/liberal suggestion? Occulus Jun 2012 #49

I'm going with "permanent shit stirrer". HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #63

It worked ever so well in Chile, Honduras, Guatamala, South Africa, and at Kent State. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #50

It is an attitude we inheired from Britian. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #52

Britain had large standing armies tasked with keeping the peace FarCenter Jun 2012 #55

It's sad the way British and Anglo thought has been preserved in this country. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #60

You might ask the Mexicans how having the military do law enforcement is working out. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2012 #53

Historically a powerful standing army has been used to centralize and cement power 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #54

Adama said it best in Battlestar Galactica backscatter712 Jun 2012 #57

there isn't an aversion if it were used to manage emergencies La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2012 #66

The founding fathers did not want military to have such power. Dawson Leery Jun 2012 #68

This is silly. Ceteris paribus, you're right. Igel Jun 2012 #70

I'm not quite sure Sgent Jun 2012 #74