'Modest Encroachments on Privacy'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Gotta love the Patriot Act. We re-elected the guy who brought it about it and then re-elected his successor who extended it. We’re getting exactly what we signed up for! [/quote]

Yeah well, so did Germany and Italy. [/quote]

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘FÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¼hrer’ or ‘Duce.’ But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’” (Dorothy Thompson, 1935)[/quote]

Scariest prophetic quote of all time. Shudder.[/quote]

Just as a note, the Germans never really elected the Nazis. They were a minor party that got some votes out of protest for the current regime, weaseled their way into government and then seized power with violence and intimidation. I think the best they ever managed in a national election was like 30 or 40%. I’m not sure if that makes the situation more or less scary that Nazi Germany was accomplished without ever receiving a majority vote in a national election.[/quote]

If Germany back then would have had the some voting system the US has now, they would have been voted it with an overwhelming majority. [/quote]

Not the way I understand it. I was interested in how it happened so I read “The Coming of the Third Reich”. The way the book presents it is much more reasonable than the standard belief that the Germans just bought into the Nazis hook line and sinker. Things like antisemitism weren’t a huge part of the platform until being against the Nazis could get you imprisoned or killed. And not that many people ever voted for the Nazis.

82

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

I never said that if Obama ordered troops to fire on Americans the troops would do it. I think there are circumstances under which it could happen, but not with Obama giving the order. He’s at the top of the chain of command. There are other points along that chain that could order it. Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to shoot and kill students at Kent State in cold blood, but it happened anyways.

My point is that IF there were a scenario in which citizens were arming themselves against the gov’t and vice versa, and that IF they were forced to fight it out with our Armed Forces, the Armed Forces would wipe us out in a heartbeat. We aren’t hardened Afghans who’ve grown up generation after generation with that sort of a life. Maybe our grandchildren would fare well if such an uprising could last that long, but not us. I fully realize that there are scenarios in which what I posited would not happen, but there are plenty of them in which it COULD happen as well.

83

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

I never said that if Obama ordered troops to fire on Americans the troops would do it. I think there are circumstances under which it could happen, but not with Obama giving the order. He’s at the top of the chain of command. There are other points along that chain that could order it. Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to shoot and kill students at Kent State in cold blood, but it happened anyways.

My point is that IF there were a scenario in which citizens were arming themselves against the gov’t and vice versa, and that IF they were forced to fight it out with our Armed Forces, the Armed Forces would wipe us out in a heartbeat. We aren’t hardened Afghans who’ve grown up generation after generation with that sort of a life. Maybe our grandchildren would fare well if such an uprising could last that long, but not us. I fully realize that there are scenarios in which what I posited would not happen, but there are plenty of them in which it COULD happen as well.[/quote]

See we are talking about differnt things here.

My original statement was that most service members would laugh at and disobey a direct order from their CO (likely an O3 - O6). This was true when I was on active duty and and I think it’s still true at least in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I really really doubt it.

I’m not very familiar with the circumstance of the Kent State shooting, but again I think most units, that doesn’t happen. Yes, it can and obviously has, but like I said, in most cases (units) that doesn’t happen.

Now as far as your scenario goes, yes if the full force of the U.S. Armed forces went to war against American Civilians they would most likely win. I’m not saying the win, but they certainly have the advantage. I; however, don’t see that scenario ever happening. There is no way, in it’s current form, the Armed Forces turns on America. NO WAY… Which is why its hard for me to argue with your scenario. Could the AF fracture and their be 2 or more factions warring, sure I could see that, but I don’t see the AF turning into the Empire anytime soon.

84

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

Uh, if the situation degraded to the point of civil war, it wouldn’t be by people ‘minding their own business’ it would be by a government vastly over stepping their bounds to the point Americans could no longer simply mind their own business.

85

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

I never said that if Obama ordered troops to fire on Americans the troops would do it. I think there are circumstances under which it could happen, but not with Obama giving the order. He’s at the top of the chain of command. There are other points along that chain that could order it. Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to shoot and kill students at Kent State in cold blood, but it happened anyways.

My point is that IF there were a scenario in which citizens were arming themselves against the gov’t and vice versa, and that IF they were forced to fight it out with our Armed Forces, the Armed Forces would wipe us out in a heartbeat. We aren’t hardened Afghans who’ve grown up generation after generation with that sort of a life. Maybe our grandchildren would fare well if such an uprising could last that long, but not us. I fully realize that there are scenarios in which what I posited would not happen, but there are plenty of them in which it COULD happen as well.[/quote]

Look at Syria.

87

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Even with obviously superior technological capability the US Armed Forces (with 1 - 2.5 million personnel including National Guard units and blue water Navy) subduing 300 million + citizens (which include many active, reserve and ex military personnel) and 60 - 100 million privately owned firearms would be an all but impossible mission.

Firing on some American citizens ala Kent State would certainly happen but on a mass scale? Nope.

Do you realize that even if we choose the conservative number of 60 million firearms and hypothetically assume only one out of every 100 of those weapons were to be used in the hands of a capable sniper and/or assassin that would mean 600,000 assassins on the loose in a chaotic America?

600,000 assassins would rein absolute hell on any “occupying” force and or civilian or martial governing authorities.[/quote]

They damn sure ain’t gonna take over West Virgina, Texas, or Georgia. 60 mil is way conservative. It’s more like 200 mil. Which is basically enough to arm 2/3’s of the entire population.

And guerilla tactics is all you need. They would have to nuke you, because they otherwise won’t find you. That Appalachians would be free. They’ll never find you in there if you don’t want to be found. They can use, heat, satellite, night vision, they won’t fucking find you. They damn sure also won’t find you in Montana either.
Your travels taking you to GA any time? We gotta hang. I think we’d have some great conversations. I make a mean steak and have a full gym in my basement.

88

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

I never said that if Obama ordered troops to fire on Americans the troops would do it. I think there are circumstances under which it could happen, but not with Obama giving the order. He’s at the top of the chain of command. There are other points along that chain that could order it. Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to shoot and kill students at Kent State in cold blood, but it happened anyways.

My point is that IF there were a scenario in which citizens were arming themselves against the gov’t and vice versa, and that IF they were forced to fight it out with our Armed Forces, the Armed Forces would wipe us out in a heartbeat. We aren’t hardened Afghans who’ve grown up generation after generation with that sort of a life. Maybe our grandchildren would fare well if such an uprising could last that long, but not us. I fully realize that there are scenarios in which what I posited would not happen, but there are plenty of them in which it COULD happen as well.[/quote]

Look at Syria.[/quote]

Look at every successful revolution.

90

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Gotta love the Patriot Act. We re-elected the guy who brought it about it and then re-elected his successor who extended it. We’re getting exactly what we signed up for! [/quote]

Yeah well, so did Germany and Italy. [/quote]

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘FÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¼hrer’ or ‘Duce.’ But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’” (Dorothy Thompson, 1935)[/quote]

Scariest prophetic quote of all time. Shudder.[/quote]

Just as a note, the Germans never really elected the Nazis. They were a minor party that got some votes out of protest for the current regime, weaseled their way into government and then seized power with violence and intimidation. I think the best they ever managed in a national election was like 30 or 40%. I’m not sure if that makes the situation more or less scary that Nazi Germany was accomplished without ever receiving a majority vote in a national election.[/quote]

If Germany back then would have had the some voting system the US has now, they would have been voted it with an overwhelming majority. [/quote]

Not the way I understand it. I was interested in how it happened so I read “The Coming of the Third Reich”. The way the book presents it is much more reasonable than the standard belief that the Germans just bought into the Nazis hook line and sinker. Things like antisemitism weren’t a huge part of the platform until being against the Nazis could get you imprisoned or killed. And not that many people ever voted for the Nazis.[/quote]

The Nazis brought in around 40% in a heavily splintered party landscape.

That would probably translate in a winner takes all system like the US to 80% ?

91

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Gotta love the Patriot Act. We re-elected the guy who brought it about it and then re-elected his successor who extended it. We’re getting exactly what we signed up for! [/quote]

Yeah well, so did Germany and Italy. [/quote]

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘FÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¼hrer’ or ‘Duce.’ But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’” (Dorothy Thompson, 1935)[/quote]

Scariest prophetic quote of all time. Shudder.[/quote]

Just as a note, the Germans never really elected the Nazis. They were a minor party that got some votes out of protest for the current regime, weaseled their way into government and then seized power with violence and intimidation. I think the best they ever managed in a national election was like 30 or 40%. I’m not sure if that makes the situation more or less scary that Nazi Germany was accomplished without ever receiving a majority vote in a national election.[/quote]

If Germany back then would have had the some voting system the US has now, they would have been voted it with an overwhelming majority. [/quote]

Not the way I understand it. I was interested in how it happened so I read “The Coming of the Third Reich”. The way the book presents it is much more reasonable than the standard belief that the Germans just bought into the Nazis hook line and sinker. Things like antisemitism weren’t a huge part of the platform until being against the Nazis could get you imprisoned or killed. And not that many people ever voted for the Nazis.[/quote]

The Nazis brought in around 40% in a heavily splintered party landscape.

That would probably translate in a winner takes all system like the US to 80% ?[/quote]

Doesn’t change the fact that not that many people ever voted for or supported the nazis.

If the US were a single party system McCain would have won getting practically 100% of the vote…

But the US isn’t a one party system, and pre-nazi Germany wasn’t a 2 party system. You can’t simply count the majority of germans who didn’t vote for the nazis as pretty much voting for them because they would have if there were fewer parties.

The large majority of Germans did NOT vote in the Nazis and therefor did not get what they voted for.

92

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Gotta love the Patriot Act. We re-elected the guy who brought it about it and then re-elected his successor who extended it. We’re getting exactly what we signed up for! [/quote]

Yeah well, so did Germany and Italy. [/quote]

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘FÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¼hrer’ or ‘Duce.’ But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!’” (Dorothy Thompson, 1935)[/quote]

Scariest prophetic quote of all time. Shudder.[/quote]

Just as a note, the Germans never really elected the Nazis. They were a minor party that got some votes out of protest for the current regime, weaseled their way into government and then seized power with violence and intimidation. I think the best they ever managed in a national election was like 30 or 40%. I’m not sure if that makes the situation more or less scary that Nazi Germany was accomplished without ever receiving a majority vote in a national election.[/quote]

If Germany back then would have had the some voting system the US has now, they would have been voted it with an overwhelming majority. [/quote]

Not the way I understand it. I was interested in how it happened so I read “The Coming of the Third Reich”. The way the book presents it is much more reasonable than the standard belief that the Germans just bought into the Nazis hook line and sinker. Things like antisemitism weren’t a huge part of the platform until being against the Nazis could get you imprisoned or killed. And not that many people ever voted for the Nazis.[/quote]

The Nazis brought in around 40% in a heavily splintered party landscape.

That would probably translate in a winner takes all system like the US to 80% ?[/quote]

Doesn’t change the fact that not that many people ever voted for or supported the nazis.

If the US were a single party system McCain would have won getting practically 100% of the vote…

But the US isn’t a one party system, and pre-nazi Germany wasn’t a 2 party system. You can’t simply count the majority of germans who didn’t vote for the nazis as pretty much voting for them because they would have if there were fewer parties.

The large majority of Germans did NOT vote in the Nazis and therefor did not get what they voted for.[/quote]

Ah, thats true.

I was going more for the “it could not happen here thing”.

My point was that it could, just more so.

93

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Hell 98/100 would beat the life out of their CO if he said to fire on Americans…[/quote]

Yeah, right. Which Americans? The ones minding their own business trying to earn a living, or the ones who would be responsible for degenerating things to the point of open civil war in this country? The Union and the Confederacy had no problem turning their guns on their fellow Americans. Articles of secession don’t exactly do much to sever that bond.[/quote]

DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

I never said that if Obama ordered troops to fire on Americans the troops would do it. I think there are circumstances under which it could happen, but not with Obama giving the order. He’s at the top of the chain of command. There are other points along that chain that could order it. Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to shoot and kill students at Kent State in cold blood, but it happened anyways.

My point is that IF there were a scenario in which citizens were arming themselves against the gov’t and vice versa, and that IF they were forced to fight it out with our Armed Forces, the Armed Forces would wipe us out in a heartbeat. We aren’t hardened Afghans who’ve grown up generation after generation with that sort of a life. Maybe our grandchildren would fare well if such an uprising could last that long, but not us. I fully realize that there are scenarios in which what I posited would not happen, but there are plenty of them in which it COULD happen as well.[/quote]

See we are talking about differnt things here.

My original statement was that most service members would laugh at and disobey a direct order from their CO (likely an O3 - O6). This was true when I was on active duty and and I think it’s still true at least in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I really really doubt it.

I’m not very familiar with the circumstance of the Kent State shooting, but again I think most units, that doesn’t happen. Yes, it can and obviously has, but like I said, in most cases (units) that doesn’t happen.

Now as far as your scenario goes, yes if the full force of the U.S. Armed forces went to war against American Civilians they would most likely win. I’m not saying the win, but they certainly have the advantage. I; however, don’t see that scenario ever happening. There is no way, in it’s current form, the Armed Forces turns on America. NO WAY… Which is why its hard for me to argue with your scenario. Could the AF fracture and their be 2 or more factions warring, sure I could see that, but I don’t see the AF turning into the Empire anytime soon. [/quote]

But do we really need to win? with a banner and everything? guerrilla tactics have a pretty solid history of keeping occupying powers off their game. I would bet a war of attrition would favor the man fighting for his home and family over the guy taking orders. Look at the middle east, basic and brutal has been pretty damn effective against our military forces. And like i said, i would bet on the guy fighting for his life/home/family than the guy taking orders in the long haul. and there are a lot of civilians with knowledge of military vehicles and their weaknesses… just saying.

do we need a distinct decimation of the occupying force, or do we just need to keep them from winning for long enough and grind them down?

94

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
But do we really need to win? with a banner and everything? guerrilla tactics have a pretty solid history of keeping occupying powers off their game. I would bet a war of attrition would favor the man fighting for his home and family over the guy taking orders. Look at the middle east, basic and brutal has been pretty damn effective against our military forces. And like i said, i would bet on the guy fighting for his life/home/family than the guy taking orders in the long haul. and there are a lot of civilians with knowledge of military vehicles and their weaknesses… just saying.

do we need a distinct decimation of the occupying force, or do we just need to keep them from winning for long enough and grind them down? [/quote]

Well I don’t think they would be a traditional occupying force. They (Armed Forces) would be fighting for their homes as well. I do agree though. I don’t think the “rebel” Americans would need to out right win, just disrupt the government until the balance of power can shift back to the people.

95

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.

96

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point.

Edit: I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

97

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point. [/quote]

My question is, would that vast majority refuse an order to kill American citizens who are suspected of plotting some type of terrorist activity?

Edit: I see you have edited your own post to pretty much answer this question.

98

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point. [/quote]

My question is, would that vast majority refuse an order to kill American citizens who are suspected of plotting some type of terrorist activity?[/quote]

See my edit please.

99

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point. [/quote]

My question is, would that vast majority refuse an order to kill American citizens who are suspected of plotting some type of terrorist activity?[/quote]

See my edit please. [/quote]

I was busy editing my own post when this was posted.

100

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point.

Edit: I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

[/quote]

What if some rogue unit fires on a few Americans and then those Americans and their cohorts mount an attack on the base the attacking soldiers came from or are stationed on? How would other soldiers then respond?