Homeland defense battle tanks to serve within the United States

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Siegelman Announces Largest Mobilization of Alabama Army National Guard

Montgomery – Gov. Don Siegelman and Brig. Gen. Mike Sumrall today announced that more than 500 additional personnel from the Alabama Army National Guard have been ordered to active duty, the largest number of personnel mobilized at one time since the mobilizations began in late September.

“These brave men and women represent the best Alabama has to offer,” Siegelman said. “When our nation called upon them in the dark days following September 11th, they proudly answered that call. Again today, Alabama service members stand ready to defend freedom and liberty as they fight the war on terrorism.”

Approximately 300 personnel from the 1st Battalion 131st Armor (1/131) in southeast Alabama will mobilize. The 1/131 has its headquarters in Ozark and units in Abbeville, Ashford, Florala and Samson. The battalion is equipped with modern battle tanks, the M1-A1 Abrams. The 1/131 will serve in the homeland defense role within the United States.

Another 200 members of the 1st Battalion 20th Special Forces Group (1/20) from units in Huntsville and Auburn will join other Special Forces units that have already been called to active duty. The 1/131 and 1/20 units will conduct post-mobilization training and then deploy to undisclosed locations in support of the war on terrorism.

Siegelman serves as Commander-in-Chief of the Alabama National Guard by virtue of his elected office. Sumrall is Adjutant General of the Alabama National Guard.

With approximately 15,500 citizens currently serving in the Army and Air National Guard, Alabama has the fourth largest National Guard force and the highest per capita number of Guard personnel in the United States. Since September 11th, approximately 2,000 National Guard personnel have been activated or deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.


-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), July 24, 2002


Hey Cherri, did you hear? The WTC collapsed in an attack on 9-11.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 24, 2002.

I thought that the military wasn't trained for this type of thing Maria?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 24, 2002.

Yes, Maria. And anthrax spores were mailed to the Congress and Supreme Court. If only the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol Building and Supreme Court had had M1-Abrams battle tanks to protect them, all that ugliness never would have happened, I guess.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 24, 2002.

Cool, there's a tank in my front yard right now!

I'd feel reassured but Mike Dukakis' and Janet Reno's heads are peeking out.

-- (lars@indy.net), July 24, 2002.

Hey dimwit Maria. How can a tank prevent the WTC from collapsing?

-- mr. handyman (fixing@dim.bulbs), July 24, 2002.

JBT and Nip:

Yeah, you would think that a battle tank designed specifically for use on the plains of central Europe would be useless and stand-out like a sore thumb in Manhattan. Still we are clever folks. I understand that they have covered them with dents and painted them yellow. They have added a smoke generator. They have also installed non-English speaking drivers who can only go from La Guardia to Manhattan by way of Montauk. People don’t notice them because they think they are cabs. Will they stop for fares? Of course not, but then real cabs don’t either. The next time a cab passes you, you now know why.

Best Wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 24, 2002.


Cherri and the others are confused because our military is actually being used for homeland defense. During the Clinton years our military would never have been used for such a thing.

-- dr. pibb (drpibb@new.formula), July 24, 2002.

dr. pibb, the role of the armed forces within the USA is strictly limited by law. Specifically the Posse Comitatus Act (sp?). What the Bush administration is calling acts of war on US soil could just as easily (if not more easily) be called crimes, already covered by federal, state and local laws. In which case, the enforcement of those laws is restricted solely to law enforcement officers, not US soldiers.

A state governor is allowed to declare a local emergency and call up the National Guard to enforce laws, as has happened during various riots. Legally, the feds can't even do that much, let alone call out the Marines or a US Army infantry brigade.

So, essentially, you are criticizing Clinton for being law-abiding. It figures. Hint: you'll get more mileage from Clinton's cock. Stick with the tried and true.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 24, 2002.


You are my hero nipper.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 24, 2002.

And Dr. Pibb is a dimwit.


-- (I second @ the. motion), July 24, 2002.

LN and JBT, The article says they have been called for active duty and deployed to undisclosed locations. So what? As Z supposes, they go to NY? You guys are too funny!

LN, you like mentioning Clinton's cock every chance you get. Yeah you're gay. But really, Clinton deployed more troops than the previous three administrations combined. Clinton abused the military with no clue what the hell it meant. Hillary says, "oh Bill you must do something!" So the big man sends in troops. What a loser! But you'll still mention his cock in your response, maybe because you're jealous of Monica.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 25, 2002.

Maria: "Clinton deployed more troops than the previous three administrations combined."

Oh, really? Aren't you forgetting the 500,000+ troops in Desert Storm? Also, it was Bush the Elder who sent troops to Panama and Somalia.

Bad Maria! Making up facts again. Bad girl!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 25, 2002.

Dim bulb Maria doesn't make up "facts", she makes up total bullshit.

-- mr. handyman (fixing@dim.bulbs), July 25, 2002.

"Specifically the Posse Comitatus Act (sp?)"

Nipster, I tink you mean the Pussy Clintonoris Act.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 25, 2002.

You got me there, LN, on my wording. Check out this site to see how many deployments Clinton made. They far outnumber the previous administrations.

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cdi.org%2Fissues%2FUSForces%2Fdeployments.html

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 25, 2002.

It's fairly obvious he didn't know where to stick his troops (or his dick - I've saved you the trouble of accusing me of being hung up on his unit) next.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 25, 2002.


You didn't answer my question to you. Wasn't it your position that this type of situation was not what the military was trained for. If so, do you agree or disagree with this deployment.

I am serious in my question. As I recall there was some debate over the proper use of the military in these situations

Please notice that my post contains no mention of the "C" word.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 25, 2002.

Sorry, JBT, you remember that correctly. I don't believe that military troops should act as police. However the article isn't clear on their exact mission. The article simply states that troops are being called into active duty (so?) and being mobilized (again so?). If I could read between the lines, I'd say that their mission hasn't changed and you won't being seeing tanks in NY as Z suggests.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 25, 2002.

My personal opinion is that this would be more related to Iraq than New York, but who knows for sure. Were you surprised to hear that military leaders were speaking in favor of giving the military an expanded role in domestic security?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 25, 2002.


I hope that you realize my post was a joke. Since I am in charge of the bioterrorism stuff, I get all kinds of messages on these subjects. I shouldn't release this information, but the Islamic hogs in Iowa are planning a rebellion. They do out-number the people. The hogs don't have tanks or Snowball. A few tanks and some Warthogs will put down the rebellion; or so I am told. ;<))) JBT may know more.

Best Wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 25, 2002.

"Homeland defense battle tanks to serve within the United States"

That isn't what the article says. It says they are equipped with tanks, then it says they will serve in the homeland defense roll. Catchy thread title, but it's just your supposition.

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), July 25, 2002.

Wow, and there was nothing about chocolate or giving head...

-- gomer pyle (surprise@surprise.surprise), July 25, 2002.

Both of which I love. : )

-- Pammy (I have@brain.too), July 25, 2002.


-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 25, 2002.


-- Pammy (smiling@JBT. : )), July 25, 2002.


Do you like to give head only as a prelude to sex, or are do you enjoy it even if you don't get the bone?

-- Dr. Ruth (curious@about.you), July 26, 2002.

Z, I got the joke (I did chuckle over it) but I think LN and the troll took it seriously - that whole right wing conspiracy thing.

JBT, I think this whole homeland stuff is wacko. The gov started out taking baby steps with this but (imo) they reacted to the media pressure and blew it by creating a cabinet post. The idea of sharing intel info is great but I'm in a wait and see mode with the rest of the plans.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 2002.

LOL! Looks like Maria is changing her mind about every 5 minutes, much like a dim bulb flickering on and off before it finally blows.

-- mr. handyman (fixing@dim.bulbs), July 26, 2002.

Troll, you've got to be the stupidest person on the planet. Maybe you're a, who couldn't even find a handle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 2002.

Dr. Ruth, I'm a little surprised by your question. You've always been nosey, but you usually show a little more cognition.

I'll try to answer your question without offending certain members of the board. When a person truly loves something, they usually love it in ALL of its forms. For instance: chocolate candy, pudding, ice cream, pie, syrup, milk, icing, etc. As the saying goes, it's ALL good. : )

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), July 26, 2002.

Ah-hah, that's very interesting, thank you Dearie. It is unusual for a woman to get satisfaction from the giving of the head unless she believes it is foreplay to getting pumped in the poontangie. Your selflessness is admirable.

-- Dr. Ruth (you are one @ in. a million), July 26, 2002.

Gee Dr Ruth, seems like you're a lil outta touch there. Perhaps you've done too many TV shows in the last coupla decades and not enough patient practice IRL-LOL! Perhaps the women (or should I saw men!) in your age bracket shun that delight, but those of us in our younger years have a different and more enlightened perspective! But then, it all is within one's own perspective, isn't it??

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), July 31, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ