Re: NAC - American style [LONG]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:08:36 -0800 (PST), Rrok Anroll
<coldnovemberrain_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> they are >need< jobs, and they aren't there for us when we need to
have
> them.... And because a large number of these immigrants are not here
> legally, they aren't paying taxes... which means that the overall tax
> base is smaller, which means that the government has to increase
> taxes... and that means less money you keep, and more that you
spend...

Oddly enough, I'm just not too bothered by immigration, given the
number of first generation Americans I know in the military who are
better Americans that many of those born here.	Starting with my
current brigade commander.

> it looks like wew'll have even more going overseas.... add to this the
> reports that recruiting isn't going very well for out services and
> reserve services... it doesn't look good at all... it may come to a

Actually, the services are making recruiting goals.

> point that the only real military we have still "in-country" are
> militia units and a few national guard units.... This puts us in a
very

Are you barking mad?  Over half the Regs are stateside refitting from
deployment or preparing for deployment.  The Pentagon does consider
these things, you know.  That's what we pay all those ossifers for.

> it does raise the possibility of such states being declared...
> "rebelous".... requiring the need for martial law... that right there

Even GWB has a staff that could spellcheck better than that.

And at any rate, state issues do not necessarily require civil war. 
The way our country was designed from the beginning was that there
should be a certain tension between the state and national
governments.  Has to do with their different focuses.

> would give you your opening stages of the 2nd American Civil War....
> and with all of our troops overseas... and I highly doubt that the
> local Guard and militia units would be up to the task (resource-wise
> and moral-wise) of suppressing a fellow state... which would mean

If things got to that point domestically, we would scale back foreign
committments.

> having to ask for foriegn assistance... "at least until we could get
> our own troops back home" which would mean foriegn occupation of true
> american soil on a major scale, for the first time in how long? And
how

Ummm. . . NO.  There are no nations anywhere in the world capable of
deploying more than a small divisional task force without US
logistical assistance.	Even if all the power projection assets of
every nation on the planet were combined, without US assistance they
couldn't get enough troops to police LA much less the entire US.

> easy do you really think it would be, and how long do you think it
> would take for us to extract ourselves from the current messes we're
> in?

For your scenario to work, everyone involved in the planning stages
would have to deliberately be working towards a breakup of the US. 
And you still have to handwave this miraculous influx of troops.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani