Not sure if this was posted before, but here is an interesting blog from a marine on taking sides in a potential civil war. My only issue is that who decides when and how the constitution has been violated? What constitutes a violation: canceled elections, ignoring a SCOTUS decision, what? His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?
"But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don't go our way. That's life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That's the way things work.
But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM."
http://christopher-calbat.newsvine....stop-and-think?pc=25&sp=0#discussion
>His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?
It doesn't matter why. He's telling the birthers, the secessionists, the tea partiers, etc., that if their rhetoric becomes violence they'll face the marines, etc.
In my opinion, the rest of us will face the loss of the 2nd amendment.
Quote: "it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me
I don't know who this guy thinks is thinking of overthrowing the government, but it ain't most of us.
What this does mean is that the military mostly will blindly follow orders. Note that he mentioned being deployed in combat in the states.
this almost certainly goes for the police, too.
Kind of sounds just like the Nazis crud spoken at rails.:Just following orders"
Just to bad, quess he thinks all Military will follow his thinking.
Pray it never comes to any more than hot air
I do not believe for a minute he speaks for the majority of rank & file military.
More of the mil will follow this thinking than not. It would not be the first time the US military has been used to quell civillian dissent (even peaceful). See the US Army vs former servicemen after WWI during great depression. That was peaceful march, also nat'l guard being used to quell union supporters during same century.
Not something I'd bet they would never do again.
the various arms of the military are always going to follow orders. that's where their pay, rank, pensions, and health care comes from. they have a self-interest to uphold.
when the soviet union crashed and burnt, what did the military choose to do???
The good sargent bases his blog on some sort of revolution springing up, rather then the citizens reacting to some overt central government outrage. Think Ruby Ridge.
Jim
I'd suggest that he and you read the Posse Comitatus Act, passed a hundred and fifty years ago.
Maybe he's already read about the whiskey rebellion.
Mako, ya better read up on it yourself, I believe it has been pretnear gutted.
Great point, the Rebellion where the Fed demonstrated they would violate their own law to put down conflict. The end result was a couple dozen arrests, and all were acquitted.
Even the early federal governmenr realized the importance of centralized power.
While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.
One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the �war on drugs.� Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371�381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas�immigration control and tariff enforcement.
For a sergeant he doesn't know much about the constitution. We are not a democracy, he gets it wrong from the start.
> He's telling the birthers, the secessionists, the tea partiers, etc., that if their rhetoric becomes violence they'll face the marines, etc. In my opinion, the rest of us will face the loss of the 2nd amendment
You continue to amaze me (rhetorical statement) with just how brain washed you are by your democrap buddies. Equating the kook element with the Tea Party movement is right out of the leftist playbook. As to the Second Amendment, you voted for a man who doesn't believe in it and who appointed an Attorney General that's even worse. The scary part about all this is that you'll probably vote in the next election...jorge
Not sure if this was posted before, but here is an interesting blog from a marine on taking sides in a potential civil war. My only issue is that who decides when and how the constitution has been violated? What constitutes a violation: canceled elections, ignoring a SCOTUS decision, what? His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?
"But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don't go our way. That's life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That's the way things work.
But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM."
http://christopher-calbat.newsvine....stop-and-think?pc=25&sp=0#discussion The armed rebellion created America. Most developing countries have a political rebellion which for us was the Revolutionary War and a social rebellion the Civil War.
The next rebellion will combine the two previous rebellions.
Doc
The next rebellion will combine the two previous rebellions.
That is quite astute.
>His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?
It doesn't matter why. He's telling the birthers, the secessionists, the tea partiers, etc., that if their rhetoric becomes violence they'll face the marines, etc.
In my opinion, the rest of us will face the loss of the 2nd amendment.
Why would you associate birthers or Tea Party folk as this guys foe? I have yet to hear anyone associated with the TM movement advocate civil war. I think you are watching too much MSNBC.
The government is already ramping up for there own security. They have started talking about protection for all of them like the president has, do you think that they are already planning on the up riseing. There not stupped after all they have buffaloed there way threw this far, it may be only a matter of time before they increase the pressure on us. May be before the November vote. I also might be looking at to much of the bad side of things too and I do hope I am wrong.
Sleep tight.
"On October 1, 2008, the US Army announced that the 3rd Infantry Division�s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command (NORTHCOM), as an on-call federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
This marks the first time an active U.S. Army unit will be given a dedicated assignment to NORTHCOM, where it is stated they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control........"
-Wikipedia
I'm kinda with TLee on this one. I think a big majority of the military to be conservative, and actually anti-Obama. I would very surprised if more of the military didn't end up on the anti-federal side of a civil war.
We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests.
If this really happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
MM
We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests.
If this really happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
MM
AMEN!!!!
I'll work toward non-violent resolution, but federal powers must be drastically reduced - no exception.
I read TFA and the author only believes in one thing - his paycheck. He is obviously totally devoid of any moral code other than "doing his job". It wouldn't matter if the Left or the Right stood up, he'd crush either. The guy is a total automaton, like a Star Wars Storm Trooper.
Unfortunately, I think he is pretty much typical of what you'd find in any walk of life. Give him his Bread & Circuses and he'd follow whatever orders were given.
>His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?
It doesn't matter why. He's telling the birthers, the secessionists, the tea partiers, etc., that if their rhetoric becomes violence they'll face the marines, etc.
In my opinion, the rest of us will face the loss of the 2nd amendment.
You forgot to remind everyone about the numerous felonies that might be committed...
Felonies That the peaple will committ or Felonies that the government has and will also committ?
We'd probably be surprised at how many true patriots there are in the military. In a SHTF situation I don't think the "just following orders" kind of guys will last long.
Their own buddies will fix what ails them.
I took the same oath this guy took and I wouldn't have taken up arms against this country regardless of who gave the order. I guess we are supposed to be frightened . I have seen a lot of civilians i would rather not mess with than most Marines who have let the job go to their heads.
Firing on civilians would be an UN-lawful order, one he seems to be cool with.
Are we forgetting what happened at Kent State? Did they ever locate the weapons that the protester used to fire on the NG?
Will the kid next door, trained in urban warfare in Iraq follow "orders" when told?
I've asked "soldiers" if they'd fire on civilians.
Most get all pissed off and try and change the subject.
I'm surprised Baby Bushka didn't declare Martial Law when Barry stole the election from McPlain.
Well the blog has been taken down for whatever that's worth.
The military will follow orders they are Federal employees. Their job is to defend and protect the national government at all cost including killing their own family members if necessary.
Don't count on the military for any kind of support. That's why many states considering creating state militias for their own defense.
There has been much talk that those of us who were in the military and swore a oath to defend and uphold the Constitution are still bound by that oath. However, nothing the present national government or any previous national government (or maybe more correctly administrations)for the last 100+ years is constitutional. Therefore, no body is bound to support the national government when the national government goes rogue.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
I digress
The Youts in the services now are less properly educated about the constitution and what it means or how it has been cyphered for them.
Ask a couple of vets back from the sandbox and get back to us on their reply on what they'd do.
I was just following orders.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
In answer to all your questions, YES!
All the national government would have to do is shoot a couple of generals for mutiny on the spot and all the other generals will be falling all over themselves to see who is the first one to send troops against the people.
The generals and admirals are Federal employees of the national government they will obey their orders and do their duty.
Remember, everything the military is doing today is unconstitutional.
I guess we will fight who we have to fight. Freedom at all cost!
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
In answer to all your questions, YES!
All the national government would have to do is shoot a couple of generals for mutiny on the spot and all the other generals will be falling all over themselves to see who is the first one to send troops against the people.
The generals and admirals are Federal employees of the national government they will obey their orders and do their duty.
Remember, everything the military is doing today is unconstitutional.
They won't need to shoot them, they will just give the order and ask if the general has a problem with it. If he has any reservations they will remove him and give the order to the next guy.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
I suggest that you look at the history of the bonus marchers from July 1932. General Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors Patton and Eisenhower killed 1 and injured 50 vets who were peacefully demonstrating for early payment of a bonus that had been promised to them by Congress. I'm pretty sure that they had radio then.
Another example is Kent State in May of 1970 where the ONG fired on students, and I'm pretty sure that had radio AND TV then.
Also keep in mind that we do have Generals like Wesley Clark, and that quite a few in current leadership positions in the military today were junior officers under Clinton, and may actually have the same worldview. I know I left the Navy Reserves in 1993-94 because of the radical changes that were taking place in the military at that time.
Never assume that it cannot happen here, as it has in the past, and there will always be those willing to gain power or position at the expense of others, and if that means firing on or beating up people that they don't know, or with whom they do not identify, then they will do so, and use the cover of "following orders" as their reason.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
I suggest that you look at the history of the bonus marchers from July 1932. General Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors Patton and Eisenhower killed 1 and injured 50 vets who were peacefully demonstrating for early payment of a bonus that had been promised to them by Congress. I'm pretty sure that they had radio then.
Another example is Kent State in May of 1970 where the ONG fired on students, and I'm pretty sure that had radio AND TV then.
Also keep in mind that we do have Generals like Wesley Clark, and that quite a few in current leadership positions in the military today were junior officers under Clinton, and may actually have the same worldview. I know I left the Navy Reserves in 1993-94 because of the radical changes that were taking place in the military at that time.
Never assume that it cannot happen here, as it has in the past, and there will always be those willing to gain power or position at the expense of others, and if that means firing on or beating up people that they don't know, or with whom they do not identify, then they will do so, and use the cover of "following orders" as their reason.
I was in the National Guard during the Kent State affair. I'm very familiar with that event. Like all National Guard soldiers I was trained to protect government assets at all cost. I would have fired on or bayoneted to death any civilian I was ordered to do so. I did not know any better. I did not agree with the Vietnam War but my training said I was not to reason why I was to do or die.
It takes age and wisdom to understand the foolishness of this and that it was unconstitutional. So as usual you are right.
I guess according to Bob we must be demented.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
I suggest that you look at the history of the bonus marchers from July 1932. General Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors Patton and Eisenhower killed 1 and injured 50 vets who were peacefully demonstrating for early payment of a bonus that had been promised to them by Congress. I'm pretty sure that they had radio then.
Another example is Kent State in May of 1970 where the ONG fired on students, and I'm pretty sure that had radio AND TV then.
Also keep in mind that we do have Generals like Wesley Clark, and that quite a few in current leadership positions in the military today were junior officers under Clinton, and may actually have the same worldview. I know I left the Navy Reserves in 1993-94 because of the radical changes that were taking place in the military at that time.
Never assume that it cannot happen here, as it has in the past, and there will always be those willing to gain power or position at the expense of others, and if that means firing on or beating up people that they don't know, or with whom they do not identify, then they will do so, and use the cover of "following orders" as their reason.
I was in the National Guard during the Kent State affair. I'm very familiar with that event. Like all National Guard soldiers I was trained to protect government assets at all cost. I would have fired on or bayoneted to death any civilian I was ordered to do so. I did not know any better. I did not agree with the Vietnam War but my training said I was not to reason why I was to do or die.
It takes age and wisdom to understand the foolishness of this and that it was unconstitutional. So as usual you are right.
I guess according to Bob we must be demented.
Well pass the Aracept if that's the case.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
I suggest that you look at the history of the bonus marchers from July 1932. General Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors Patton and Eisenhower killed 1 and injured 50 vets who were peacefully demonstrating for early payment of a bonus that had been promised to them by Congress. I'm pretty sure that they had radio then.
Another example is Kent State in May of 1970 where the ONG fired on students, and I'm pretty sure that had radio AND TV then.
Also keep in mind that we do have Generals like Wesley Clark, and that quite a few in current leadership positions in the military today were junior officers under Clinton, and may actually have the same worldview. I know I left the Navy Reserves in 1993-94 because of the radical changes that were taking place in the military at that time.
Never assume that it cannot happen here, as it has in the past, and there will always be those willing to gain power or position at the expense of others, and if that means firing on or beating up people that they don't know, or with whom they do not identify, then they will do so, and use the cover of "following orders" as their reason.
Take a look at MacArthur. He had to be relieved of command by Truman. MacArthur was just short of being an ego maniac. The military was a small one of made up of volunteers. Most of the enlisted were folks that couldn't make it on the outside. The protesters were conscripts that the regular Army looked down on. Some Generals and Admirals are like polititians and out from themselves and will do what it takes to keep their power. Others are the real deal.
Will the active duty military turn on the citizens? Can't say but that's why every state has a National Guard under the governor's control. What I believe will happen if the US government gets worried enough, it will try to disarm the National Guard units by taking their ammo. Sound familiar?
1992 - Los Angeles, active duty Marines, Army and National Guard units responded to put down the civil disorder resulting from the Rodney King incident.
Not that long ago...
Yes, he was relieved by Truman-18 years after the Bonus March incident-and only because he bucked the CinC and was considered a possible rival for the '52 elections. Ego maniac? Possibly so, but no more than any other politician since Hoover, and especially when compared to FDR.
I cannot say whether the AcDu military will turn on the populace either, but history is on the side of them doing so. When it comes down to following orders or being court martialed and given a DD, with no possibility of finding gainful employment once out of the military, I would suspect that many on active duty would indeed follow orders, as the survival of their families would be at stake.
Mike,I don't disagree with you. It has happened and may again.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? .
In answer to all your questions, YES!
All the national government would have to do is shoot a couple of generals for mutiny on the spot and all the other generals will be falling all over themselves to see who is the first one to send troops against the people.I dont like to interrupt your wallow in stuipedy fest.But this didnt happen before the civil war.
The country is split now ,just like it was before the civil war.There are plenty of people of deep conviction on both sides in the military and out.
It takes two sides to make a fight.
dave
Will the active duty military turn on the citizens? Can't say but that's why every state has a National Guard under the governor's control. What I believe will happen if the US government gets worried enough, it will try to disarm the National Guard units by taking their ammo. Sound familiar?
The NG is under the Governor's control until the President federalizes it. Little Rock ring a bell?
Will the active duty military turn on the citizens? Can't say but that's why every state has a National Guard under the governor's control. What I believe will happen if the US government gets worried enough, it will try to disarm the National Guard units by taking their ammo. Sound familiar?
The NG is under the Governor's control until the President federalizes it. Little Rock ring a bell?
Barry C, you're 100% correct. In 1957 during the Little Rock Central High School fiasco, Arkansas Gov. Faubus called out "his" National Guard to stop integration at Central High. Faubus also ordered "his" Nat'l. Guard to stop the U.S. Marshals from escorting black kids into Central High.
Pres. Eisenhower just said, "Oh yeah? Watch this!"
Eisenhower then signed an Executive Order Federalizing the Ark. Nat'l. Guard and then to make certain there were no "fun and games" he sent a couple battalions of the U. S. Army's famous 101st Abn. Div. paratroopers, the "Screaming Eagles," to "keep order." They carried out the orders of the U.S President and
not the Ark. Governor. They also made very sure the Federalized Arkansas Nat'l. Guard did exactly as they were told, too.
There's just something about having a loaded M1 Garand with a bayonet attached, at your back to induce you to follow orders.
I lived in Little Rock at that time. I know what happened there.
L.W.
Will the active duty military turn on the citizens? Can't say but that's why every state has a National Guard under the governor's control. What I believe will happen if the US government gets worried enough, it will try to disarm the National Guard units by taking their ammo. Sound familiar?
The NG is under the Governor's control until the President federalizes it. Little Rock ring a bell?
And if it gets Federalized, and the Guardsmen refuse the orders that they are given, more than likely they will be stripped of weapons and sent home.
First things first..Do you honestly think our Generals would give the orders to take up arms against civilians? The vast majority of combat arms service men are right leaning folks. One more thing to consider, you can reference incidents from years ago when soldiers took up arms against civilians, but that was in an age before TV, Radio, the internet. What I'm getting at is people (servicemen) aren't ignorant as to what's going on in this country.
Right leaning? As in voting for republicans? Doesn't hardly add up to defending personal freedoms although it usually does add up to a larger military budget.
Also, National Guard troops were in on the firearms confiscations in New Orleans and I would assume they had access to TV, radio, and the internet and anyone involved in the WWII internment of US citizens likely had access to radio so access to technology either does not matter or it may even facilitate such acts.