Think the army won't turn on it's citizens?

reply to post by TheRepublic

Yeah. I've heard of Sherman's march to the sea. Sherman was the first American general to utilize full war. He knew that in order to get the war over with, he was going to have to break the will of the South.

Oddly, Sherman killed far fewer Southerners than did Lee.

Sherman marched and scrounged, and avoided set-piece battles. Sherman maintained his freedom of movement, and never let the South get "set" by following an anticipated line of approach.

Lee set out to defend territory.

Yet while there were violations of Sherman's orders, he did order that only scrounging and production assets be destroyed.

As far as another claiming Nazi Germany as an example, that was in essence a police state with a dictator at the head. That was nothing like what we have today in the US.

Think the Army won't Turn on it's Civilians?

They already have during or right after WWI:

en.wikipedia.org...

General MacCarther considered the veterans as Communists, but they only wanted their rightful payment from serving during WWI...MacCarthur ordered the veterans protesting fired upon...So, yes, our troops, if ordered, would fire upon civilians...

The U.S. Army intervenes
On the 28th of July 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of Civil Service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honour, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton charged the cavalry against them — an action which prompted the Civil Service employee spectators to yell: "Shame! Shame!" against the charging cavalry.

After the cavalry charge, infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, entered the Bonus Army camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, to their largest camp; President Hoover ordered the Army assault stopped, however, Gen. MacArthur—feeling this free-speech exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. Government—ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed — including William Hushka and Eric Carlson; a veteran's wife miscarried; and many other veterans were hurt. The sight of armed U.S. Army soldiers attacking poor American veterans of the recent Great War later prompted formal veteran relief funds, and, eventually, establishment of the Veterans Administration. (Bonus Army encamped in 1932; Veterans Administration had already been established in 1930. en.wikipedia.org...) As member of Gen. MacArthur's staff, Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower had strong reservations about routing the Bonus Army.

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilised without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

The only deaths that did occur were two veterans shot by the police before the army intervened. An infant, Bernard Myers, later died in the hospital after the incident but reports indicated the death was not caused by the evacuation of the BEF.

So, civilians (yes, ex-military, but civilains, none-the-less) were only marching on DC to dispute the lack of payment for their service during WWI and were gunned down, AGAINST, presidential directive, for a small amount of money...

So, do you really think that our troops wouldn't fire upon us? I'm retired Navy and know that the senior military leadership, if ordered, would order lower ranking soldiers to fire upon our civilians...Think about all of the Germans that fired against their citizens...It could easily happen...

Yes, yes, yes. The problem is, these current American civilians will shoot back.

The military may fire on one group one time. After that, they'll never, ever, get the jump on civilians again.

And those Generals that order such a thing?

Let them go to their homes and see what they find.

Originally posted by Vector J
This is an extremly interesting thread, and I take the OP's point fully.

What I find intruiging is the people saying 'Soldiers won't fight against their own people, because of their morals/personal judgement/whatever.'. These are the same people that agree that solideris are trained to follow orders.

Anyone notice the problem?

No.
If a sargeant told someone to kill everyone in an old folks home, do you honestly think the soldier would do it "JUST CAUSE" ?

If we believe that soldiers follow orders, then we must believe that they would follow their superiors orders and turn on their fellow countrymen.

There's a difference between following legal orders and illegal orders.

If we beleive that soldiers have a moral or otherwise stance that means they wouldn;t follow orders they judge to be 'illegal' or against their personal code, then, of course these brave men and women wouldn;t fire upon their fellow citizens.

The problem is that, if soldiers just picked and chose what orders they followed based on morals or sense of justice or what they view as right or legal, then they'd be pretty ineffective soldiers.

Not really.
There's a huge difference between following orders to subdue terrorists and following an order that would require them to kill a school full of children in class learning their ABC's

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by jfj123

 

not to rehash the civil war but you have heard of shermans march to the sea havnt you?

that was brutality and it was random and carried out against civilians.

But that wasn't the whole idea of the war, was it?

The reality is that humans love to see others suffer.

Studies and experiments are NOT reality. A "once in a lifetime" case 80 years ago also does not make reality. And the mindset today, of both civilain and military personel, are not easily swayed to "jump" when the lead lemming says so.

In the scenario where a soldier comming back from Iraq sees their home in turmoil is not just going to break out the guns and start shooting, firs thing they will see in their minds is the killing and death and those feelings hit and actually will make them think before pulling a trigger.

Unless someone actually rushes them with a gun pointing and ready to fire, thats just self defense, nothing more.

These American soldiers have famlies, friends, relatives and their friends that will come to mind in this "fantasy" world your trying to say will happen. And its just that, fantasy. Again controlled experiments and tests, especially when conditioned to be something they are not at first, does not mean that will be reality.

To put it simpler, reality is what you make it to be. If you want reality to be where your filled with lead and everyone else around you, then make that so and you will get your scenario. Are people that hungry for death, even to a point where they want to see it, and experience it first hand from their own? With all these gloom and doom threads lately and AJ's ranting and raving about the same thing, it sure does sound like people want to meet their maker at the hands of their brother, sister, dad, mom, uncle, aunt, neighbor and stranger.

So make reality what you want it to be. The choices ARE ours to make.




Cheers!!!!

I was particularly disturbed by seeing men and women soldiers smilling, enjoying the torturing and humiliation of Iraq POW's.

these same guards were military reservist and many had worked as prison guards in the US.

i believe many of them learned to abuse and abused prisoner in the US prison system long before they went to Iraq.

the military was a the least negligent for not doing a background check on these people before assigning them as guards in Iraq.

i believe if the military had done a check on the complaints filed against them in the US prison they worked at they would never have been assigned the duties of guards in Iraq.

These are some of the guards
Prior to his deployment to Iraq, Frederick was a corrections officer at Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, Virginia
en.wikipedia.org...
Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, a participant in the abuse, whose civilian job was as a corrections officer at a Virginia prison. Frederick stated, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things ... like rules and regulations,"

Specialist Charles Graner -He had a background as a corrections officer."
en.wikipedia.org...

bull they knew the proper treatment of prisoner from being a prison guard in the US.

Originally posted by dooper
Yes, yes, yes. The problem is, these current American civilians will shoot back.

The military may fire on one group one time. After that, they'll never, ever, get the jump on civilians again.

And those Generals that order such a thing?

Let them go to their homes and see what they find.

dooper...I would LOVE to agree with you, but many New Jerseyians are pacifists, and would probably crumble at the sight of tanks on the streets...And I doubt that many even own guns...So, like Tiananmen Square in China...One of our citizens would be run over by a tank...I hope that your state WOULD fight back...

People here state that the U.S. citizens will fight back. I don't think so. Look at the $700b bailout, the Patriot Act, and so many other things. We don't fight back worth nothing. Look at the other nations, Greece, the Asian nation that took over the airport. For the smaller scale things, these people will stand up the government. Even when a cop shoots an innocent man, we might have a hundred people protest, but nothing else.

You can honestly sit here and tell me, you see a brigade of tanks and armed to the teeth soldiers coming down your street you are going to fight back? Yea right.

The same way the Chinese go after there people is the same way the US would go after its citizens. The US doesn't have to send in troops to fight every citizen in Houston or LA. All it has to do is send in the troops to pick up the ones who are the most likely to ignite the crowd.To quell any possible civil unrest, they will bring then in on trump up charges. Once people see the loudest ones are being taken away, the rest will fall in line. It would not be an all out military vs civilians event as most are imagining. As long as there are trump up charges on those people, I don't see how the military personnel could disobey a lawful order.

Originally posted by jam321
The same way the Chinese go after there people is the same way the US would go after its citizens. The US doesn't have to send in troops to fight every citizen in Houston or LA. All it has to do is send in the troops to pick up the ones who are the most likely to ignite the crowd.To quell any possible civil unrest, they will bring then in on trump up charges. Once people see the loudest ones are being taken away, the rest will fall in line. It would not be an all out military vs civilians event as most are imagining. As long as there are trump up charges on those people, I don't see how the military personnel could disobey a lawful order.

Exactly. It is what I said, we make the reality. If certian "Im billy bard arse and I will fix their little red wagons" armchair toughies want to go out and stirr up chaos, it is those who will be rounded up and put into prison, camps or put down for good, while the rest of civilized society goes on with their lives and actually deals with problems in a civilized way.

Seems like there are some who are itching for trouble, want trouble and think they can overcome anything that is sent their way.

Well, who is stopping them? Why do we not see any of these toughies going into the streets right now flexing their tiny muscles and showing who's boss?

When it comes right down to it, they want to see someone else take the first step first..since none have done that...looks like no one wants to be the first to demonstrate how stupid all this nonsense really is and to be the first to be taken away in a body bag and box. And your box wont have an American flag drapped across it either.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


I think people took this as let's send in the troops. I meant if the troops were already on the ground, they would indeed turn on the citizens. (Not, rambo style, even the smallest things like arrests.)

I don't mean shooting at citizens at will. But, put the military in an authoritative position over citizens and let's see what happens. There will be chaos, life will not be the same, when you can't go out partying and a curfew is in effect, you situation has changed, and therefore you will change. Regular citizens will change and therefore the military will have to adjust to this change, with strength and by example.

This is not the only experiment that has raised questions about unethical actions from average people based on environment and peer responses.

In 1961 Stanley Milgram, a Yale professor of psychology, did an experiment in which the participants would administer electric shock to others if they got the wrong answer on a test. The participants were unaware that the test subjects were actors and not really being shocked. After watching the "actors" writhe in pain from shocks over 80% of the participants still administered the shocks and even increased the voltage. The test subjects were in fact just acting like they were being shocked; however, the participants did not know this, they believed it was real. This same experiment was recently repeated and found that 70% willingly participated.

Here is a link for the Discover story on this.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

And here is a link for the original experiment in 1961.

www.new-life.net...

I always wondered why people believed their army wouldn't turn on their own people. I have a couple reasons why I KNOW they will...
1. Armies already have in the past.
2. If you have a family to feed and a house to pay for, you'll do whatever your superior tells you to.
3. They will be told we (as in protesters) are the enemy, not 'one of them'. So in their minds, they really aren't turning on anyone.

It would not take much of a "false flag operation" to make young soldiers fear the citizenry.

A few staged destructions of National Guard armories, a few soldiers shot by the abbreviated people and dumped in alleys.

The next thing you know, they'll start calling us "Hadjis".

Believe it.

Just you remember when it comes time, a cord and a knife are a lot quieter than a pistol.

reply to post by smokehouseslim


I'm sorry but.....

ROFLMAO!!!!!

People like you need to go take history classes again.

And guess what?

Baghdad fell in 2 weeks.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by RFBurns

 

I don't mean shooting at citizens at will. But, put the military in an authoritative position over citizens and let's see what happens. There will be chaos, life will not be the same, when you can't go out partying and a curfew is in effect, you situation has changed, and therefore you will change. Regular citizens will change and therefore the military will have to adjust to this change, with strength and by example.

So - based off of what you just said here, it's not really our fault then, is it? If the country - for some wild reason - goes intol martial law, people are quick to point the finger at us, but it's not really us, is it?

You don't like a curfew, you want to go out partying, etc... go it - so do we. But if the government (mind you - the legitimate government - not some power-hungry psuedo president) orders martial law for a legitimate reason... then - you'd see us on the streets. The "chaos" you mention wouldn't be from the ranks of my military - we'd be in perfect order. The only "chaos" would be when the citizens decided to do crazy stuff like:

1) Physically attack soldiers.
2) Try to take their weapons... (LOL - please.)
3) Start rioting or amass violent protests.
4) Blatantly disobey laws and put soldiers/law enforcement in a situation where they'd have to act.

So, the real issue is not that we'd become power hungry civilian abusing mad men - it's that the American populace will be upset by a change in the status quo and react to it in sometimes negative ways. You think automatically that if they put me or my guys on the streets in the US, we're going to be "bullying" you and other people. No. I don't care what "psychological" studies you've amassed - I'm "IN" the Army. My past 7 years of studies suggest that you're wrong. We wouldn't become bullies, not by any means - sure you'd have the few idiots (just like in ANY ORGANIZATION.)

No - what you fail to grasp is that of course we'll act harshly if citizens attack us - what do you think we're going to do? Sit there and let you take our weapons and throw # at us? This isn't the 60s... man. If someone came up to me back in 03 and spit on me - they would have woken up in a hospital and you can quote me on that.

We'll follow the orders given to us as long as they're lawful. If the orders are lawful (barring they make killing innocent little sweet bunny rabbit people) legal - then we'll carry out our lawful orders. If those orders mean Town X needs a curfew of 2300-0500, then we'll patrol the streets. If you're in Town X and outside during those hours - you're going home or to jail. Simple as that.


Anyway.


A 16 year old girl was on here about 6 months ago, worried to death about the NWO and martial law. I'll say what I said to her.

We, as the US Armed forces, would augment civilian police agencies in the event of martial law.

The government isn't going to declare martial law on the drop of a hat. It would take something extremely serious for that to occur - a major national disaster, major unrest in the states (militias fighting, riots, etc.), a major sickness sweeping through the country, etc. Then and only then would they pull us from the hinterlands of the rest of Earth and put us on the streets in the US. Once that happened, our only role as the US Armed Forces would be to maintain order and provide assistance to the local governments. The only thing is that if someone were to physically interfere with our roles and cause strife, they would get rolled up and thrown in jail or whatever.

So no. Your thread didn't change my mind - because I am a soldier and I wouldn't turn on American citizens - UNLESS - they were turning on me.

[edit on 26-12-2008 by mf_luder]

reply to post by mf_luder


what in the case of a constitutional change that the people are against that the govt deems necessary,like the right to bear arms for example?

reply to post by mf_luder


Hmm. Maybe I should have been real descriptive in my OP. What I am trying to say here, is that people say. Oh, the military will not round up citizens or shoot citizens, they will, clear as day. No, they won't if citizens are peaceful and in order, but, if citizens are rioting against the government, the military will act upon the citizens.

Forget the scenario. Studies show, change a persons situation and they will change dramatically. Solider or citizen.