Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
This is truly weird, and scary, because it's really difficult to come up with a good reason for this. The US has the national guard to deal with stuff inside the country, and for a good reason actually.
Troops that have been stationed in a warzone for three years are going to be much more prone to shoot before thinking. One can only hope this is not why those troops are wanted in the US.
EDIT: Although now that I think of it, because of the non-classical style of warfare in Iraq, the troops there have received quite a bit of training for dealing with citizens in non-violent ways. Also since so many national guard units have also been placed in Iraq, the difference between an army unit and a national guard unit is not what it used to be propably.
I could see this as a combination of logistics ("we need troops in the US because there could be unrest") and a slight slip-up because the people in charge haven't been thinking about the symbolical difference between those two types of troops.
Either that or the right wing is going to steal the election, and they feel these guys are the best to protect them in case people don't buy the results of the election. Unfortunately, this is not an impossible scenario in my eyes.
If the polls start to show weird uncoherency (meaning that some pollsters with right leaning tendencies suddenly start to make this election look a lot closer than it seems right now), start worrying.
|
Most National Guard troops have been stationed in war zones at least some time in the last 6 years.
Just saying.
Your election stealing theory is as crazy as the racist uprising theory. I'll just leave it at that. You guys can continue to indulge your silly preconcieved notions about the States. I'm getting used to it.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|