Do You Believe Our Military Would Not Defend The American People?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


No, it was a realistic reaction. You sit back and ridicule how the Katrina aftermath was handled but yet you didn't want anything to do with it.

This thread isn't even about Katrina and you keep going back to it. Not to mention you keep claiming that the Guard disarmed the old lady when in fact it was the police.

If you are going to post a video view it first. Before you critisize be sure its about something that you would do or its pointless.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by TheHunted]

The United States Army is not the nineteenth century Prussian army.

Anyone ever been on a jury? The army is much like a jury. Individuals with many origins, many backgrounds, many viewpoints, yet within that group is a collective sense of what is right and wrong.

The United States military as a group would not fire on Americans simply because they received orders to.

In all armies, there are a few ultra hardcore individuals that are cold-hearted murderous bastards just because they want to be. But the group as a whole don't trust them very far, and in the event of a situation where this hardcore would even consider firing in everyday Americans, 99% of the time, before he could get to his second clip, he's catch one in the back of his head. I've known some, and as long as they directed their psychotic behavior toward armed enemy, they were all right. But when they began crossing the line of remotely civilized behavior, they were neutralized.

Soldiers are not automatons as critics and fiction writers would sometimes portray. They are men. Loyal to their country and countrymen, or they wouldn't be in the United States military.

To suggest that the American military would somehow not defend the people is absurd. To suggest the American military would fire on the people simply based on orders is even more absurd.

And automatic weapons? Every household should have them if they wish, and in times of need, you'd be surprised at how easy forbidden weapons are come by.

[To suggest the American military would fire on the people simply based on orders is even more absurd.]

I do not believe anyone has said this in these posts ..
But we all know that in times of trouble (Like Katrina) if even one person got out of hand and shot a gun ..or even started running towards troops (maybe in fear to ask for help even ) ...it would cause chaos as everyone would be running around crazy trying to get out of the way maybe ... ...and that would for sure lead to a horrible killing mess ...
The troops would get paranoid of everyone ..everyone would get paranoid of the troops .....adrenaline would cause so much excitement that peoples energy would be sky high (Not in a good way) ...and there ya go ...a complete mess .

It just does not look good for either party at this point does it ?

GOD HELP THE MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN (to be able to discern good guy from bad guy) and GOD HELP US ALL >>.

reply to post by dooper

The United States military as a group would not fire on Americans simply because they received orders to.

They most certainly would. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't regret it, but you don't second-guess orders when you're downrange.

Let me give an example. I am posted at the gates of a warehouse. I am told to hold my position and have been authorized to apply deadly force in doing so. A bunch of civilians try to storm the warehouse to get the food that is inside. I will, without hesitation, fire with deadly accuracy until the attack is repelled or I am physically unable to carry out the order.

EDIT to add: And soldiers have already proven that they would indeed fire on unarmed American civilians when ordered to do so.





[edit on 9/30/0808 by jackinthebox]

If you want a very rough idea of how things could be, study the events in Northern Ireland when British Troops were sent there to assist the police.

This song always reminds me of it..


Song - 'Soldier' by Harvey Andrews (based on actual event).




[edit on 30/9/08 by Myrdyn]

Originally posted by Mcloud313
This sounds pretty cocky to me...I challenge you to be in such a situation of chaos and determine who is a friend and who is a hostile.

Oddly enough, I have been in a hurricane and the aftermath of a hurricane.

en.wikipedia.org...

And, no one was disarmed. It was never even a question. You would be amazed at how well people can come together and take care of themselves and each other if they are allowed to. There was no question of who was a "hostile" because our policemen never took the approach that we were the enemy. They helped. We all helped. We lost power and water, etc. zAll our food spoiled in our refrigerators, but there were no forced evacuations. If your house was destroyed, you stayed with neighbors friends, or in a shelter such as a school. If your house survived, you stayed in your home and helped clean up the debris from the storm with the rest of the neighbors and the state crews. We didnt have any trouble telling who was a friend and who wasnt. If they were helping, they were a friend. If they were acting like an idiot stealing or causing trouble, they were hostile. We have eyes. It isnt that hard to see. Maybe I do sound cocky. To me, being scared of your own townspeople sounds just plain cowardly. Its all a matter of opinion isnt it?

Originally posted by Mcloud313
I would argue anyone who didn't look like me (such as uniform), or was actively not with my group would need to be disarmed.

Honestly? Including your fellow Americans? You should not be allowed to carry a weapon yourself if you think that way of your own people, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Mcloud313
It comes down to a matter of trust the whole reason we exist is because the citizens can't be trusted upon to maintain order if they could we wouldn't have a Police Force or an Army.

I thought the Army was designed to handle other Armies. The police I thought were in place to handle criminals. I didnt realize it was because the citizens could not be trusted to maintain order. I thought it was to specialize, so that many of us could go about the business of doing other things in the best interests of the country. Working, building houses and infrastructure, writing computer programs, etc., you know, that trivial work that makes an Army or a police force possible at all. I did not realize it was to herd us around like a bunch of incompetent and untrustworthy cattle. I thought in a country of the people, by the people and for the people, those agencies served the people.

Originally posted by Mcloud313
do you think that the civilians of that zone could have restored order on their own by walking around armed with firearms?

If you mean would citizens have prevented all the looting, no. If you mean could citizens have taken care of their own homes, those not under water, yes. There is no indication that taking the weapons from people was necessary, legal, or beneficial.

Originally posted by Mcloud313
Do you argue they could determine between who was aiding them in restoring order and who was just taking advantage of the situation by looting and murdering?

How many people were murdered? More than on any other normal month in that city? You act as if mass murders were occurring. They werent. And if you claim they were, back it up. I have always been able to tell friend from foe in my own life. I dont go around jumping everyone I see first because they might want to fight with me. I can understand that mentality in a country like Iraq or even Vietnam, where the fighters on the other side are dressed just like the average guy. But this is the USA. We are not insurgents, not enemy combatants, and if you think we are, you are so far gone I dont know what to say to you.

Looting went on, sure. But what does looting have to do with taking guns away from law abiding citizens? How are those two connected at all? Enact a curfew, patrol the area, arrest anyone out after curfew. Like they do in every other situation where looting is occurring. They didnt seize firearms in Texas recently. The didnt sieze weapons in Hawai'i during Iwa. Maybe all the Gestapo methodology CAUSED a lot of the problems in Katrina, ever thought of that?

Or are you saying that the people of Louisiana and New Orleans particularly are more dangerous than the citizens in the rest of the US?

Now I see why some of you are so paranoid. Theres five new "Marshall Law" threads here a day. Maybe you should stop reading. Each prediction has failed, stop freaking out.

reply to post by TheHunted


Actually, it really is nothing new. We've been under martial law for a very long time now...


Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

I think they would attack US citizens because of orders. Think an LA riot type situation, now lets say the government orders the G.I. (Government Issue) to attack said citizens i belive they will with out question, orders is orders and all that.

But what i hope is that if such a situation arises (NWO) it will not take them long to work out what's going on and then step up to defend Joe nobody.

Otherwise were all screwd



And to add smething a bit more contructive.............theres not a person in the Millitary that DOES NOT do as there told..................soon as you dont fit in .....your out of there............your choice or not!

"Dont be niave solider"

[edit on 30-9-2008 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]

I know that historically and I can think of no exceptions going back to the earliest Mesopotamian city states,it is the military that the citizen pays taxes to support that is their major oppressor in the case of a revolt,or martial law,or coup or any major social upheaval. All the commanders have to do is say all the citizens in this town are rebels,or traitors,or terrorists and there you go. It's a question for soldiers to ask themselves whether or not they themselves have the stomach to kill other Americans,most of the time they do

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jesus Christ! You post a photo of the National Guard shooting at Kent State as an example? These kids in the Guard were untrained, unprepared, and scared half to death. The people on the other side were throwing things. You don't throw rocks, bottles, or anything at folks holding rifles. I hate to think what I'd have done if folks were shouting and throwing things at me while I was armed and there that day. Throwing things to hit Guardsmen is provocative behavior that instigates and provokes reciprocal behavior. It's too bad it happened, and innocents that weren't even protesting and throwing things were shot. Complete loss of control on both sides.

Then you give an example of following order to hold your post. That's much different than being ordered just to fire on folks. If someone tries to overcome me while I'm holding that post, you're damned right. Those are threatening me personally by attacking, they are breaking the civil law by attacking, and lethal force is justified. And it wouldn't matter if I was in uniform or just a civilian protecting my warehouse. You bet. I'd drop them as fast as I could. We saw anarchy in Liberty City, LA, and saw storekeepers dropping looters right and left. Serves them right.

reply to post by dooper


Great post! The fact of the matter is this was an isolated incident. Its not like the National Guard go's on a shooting rampage on a daily basis.

Originally posted by dooper
The United States Army is not the nineteenth century Prussian army.

Anyone ever been on a jury? The army is much like a jury. Individuals with many origins, many backgrounds, many viewpoints, yet within that group is a collective sense of what is right and wrong.

Awful example.

Most jurors are unenlightened and moronic individuals who send innocent [innocent in the sense they did nothing wrong] men and women to prison for years over something as small as recreational marijuana use.

Yes, there are those few who stand up and decide to acquit individuals over such petty bull#, but the vast majority just follow their instructions...judge the facts, not the law in question. Sure you smoked an illegal drug, but did you harm anyone? No you didn't, but your peers are still going to send you to rot in prison for a long duration of time. They don't care if the law is bull#, they'll still send you to prison if you go against the grain.

Edit: This isn't a thread about "would the military kill civilians," it's a thread about whether or not the military would stand up and defend civilians. Example: The government tells the military to roundup Americans because they are protesting peacefully (a god given right), or the government tells the military to roundup everyone's guns (another god given right --to possess firearms) and arrest those who refuse...yet, these incidents have occured, and the Military did follow their orders. They went against their oath, and violated the Constitution.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Double Eights]

reply to post by dooper

These kids in the Guard were untrained, unprepared, and scared half to death.

As is that makes any difference whatsoever. They were uniformed national guardsmen. Did they complete basic? Were they taught how to use their weapon? Yes and yes.

The people on the other side were throwing things. You don't throw rocks, bottles, or anything at folks holding rifles. I hate to think what I'd have done if folks were shouting and throwing things at me while I was armed and there that day. Throwing things to hit Guardsmen is provocative behavior that instigates and provokes reciprocal behavior.

And what do you think the situation would be if a group of civilians got together and decided to storm the Capitol to wrest it from the control of fascism? It's not going to be a bunch of Ghandis fighting the NWO.

Complete loss of control on both sides.

I don't blame the Guardmen at all. You're right, someone attacks me, I defend myself, uniform or not. But that's really the whole point isn't it? You put troops in when you want to shoot people. That's what soldiers do, and American soldiers are good at it. Leadership was to blame there. The Guard never should have been on the campus in the first place.

That's much different than being ordered just to fire on folks.

There will always be a "reason." Even an evil government isn't going to waste bullets.

My answer is a 'qualified" yes.

"Qualified" as such that the military as whole would defy orders if directed to inflict undue harm on fellow citizens without reason for cause (self-defense).

My exception need only go back as far as the political conventions. We had riot police, in full swat gear, just aching to mix things up (whats the deal with the full face masks so nobody can identify them later?). There are some out there who could care less who the victim was as long as they had the opportunity to kick somebody's ass.

The government isn't stupid. They already know who in the police and the military has the mental propensity for violence and who they could count on to not take sides as long as they get to see some "action".

The first ones that will be disarmed and arrested will be their fellow comrades in arms who question their mission.

In the end, the sad truth of the matter is, that the anwer is no. The troops will not defend the people against the government because they are taught, as we all are, that the government IS the people.

There are those of us who know though, that the tenets of democracy have long since been circumvented by rampant capitalism. The vote is purchased, not won, even in the best-case scenario. More likely today, no matter who we vote for, we are voting for NWO. It can't be made any clearer than having a choice between two Bonesman for President.

reply to post by Double Eights


No. Not a bad example. Juries, as citizens, with due diligence, are tasked with
determining guilt or innocence. They do now write the laws, the determine guilt or innocence. I don't give a hoot in hell if you had one joint or a cigarette boat full of coke. You break the law, you are tried by a jury of your peers. Just because you don't like some of the laws doesn't negate the validity of a jury's ability to reason.

I was in the Army when this Kent State thing went down. By that point, I was so sick of all the damned riots and demonstrations myself. Everyone looks back on the music and thinks the 60's and early 70's were so great. No. It was a troubling, confusing time. The Guard had zero training in riot or crowd control. They were certainly familiar with their weapons, and the results verify that somewhat.

When I got back from combat, my new unit was to go to Washington for security purposes. I was not allowed because I was still not far enough removed from combat, and they feared that I may react as I had in combat. No problem, and my feelings weren't hurt. The military takes precautions that most of us don't even think about.

I recall after that, we all had to go out and train in riot gear. Not to take the offense against American protesters, but to learn how to act as a unit, control the situation, including our own emotions, and hopefully keep anyone from getting hurt.

Soldiers have a collective moral awareness of significant quality, as do their officers. They are men of character. Some more than others, but I never saw a robot my entire time. We were blood, bone, gristle, and yes, even tears at times.

Our military is not made up of foreigners. Our military is America, for America. And they hang it out for America whenever required. They'll not hesitate to drop their own shield to protect a brother soldier, and they would do no less for citizens.

Orders are orders, but unlawful orders are not orders.

reply to post by dooper

Orders are orders, but unlawful orders are not orders.

But who determines what it "lawful?" That's the problem. We get some propoganda shoved down our throat and the next thing you know people are submitting to subway bag searches in direct violation of the Constitution, all because the stacked Supreme Court made it "legal" and said that it was not un-Constitutional. So in other words, they have everyone believing that it is somehow not against the Constitution to do exactly what the Constitution says is not allowed.

The question is whether American soldiers would protect American citizens.
I think as a general rule of thumb they would protect citizens.

Many in the military today come from families who served in the military. From the Revolutionary war to the present war in Iraq.

To question orders is important and there are even classes required for soldiers to attend to help distinguish between a moral lawful order and an unlawful illegal order. Most soldiers do not question the majority of orders as the enemy is clearly defined and or the objective is fixed.
In a civil unrest situation, the lines would be blurred to some extent, but not to the point of indiscriminate firing on civilians.

Now suppose the orders were to confiscate legally possessed weapons in the hands of citizens. Lots of military members come from a tradition rich in private ownership of firearms and would hesitate to follow this order. There are those who are psychotically inclined who would love to see some action, and some of the special forces attract that type of individual.

Your average army unit including guards men are previously ordinary citizens and will plan to return to be ordinary citizens.
As a general rule 85-90% would not fire on citizens, 10% would just to get adrenaline going.

I have little doubt that most American soldiers would fight against the government, if it were clear that the government had truly become the enemy of the people and no longer operated in accordance with the Constitution. But until the soldiers and the rest of the American people wake up and smell the fascism, we will proceed as we have been, a-sheep-at-the-wheel.