reply to post by seabag
I think we are just missing each other on the comprehension of our points . . .
I have great respect for those who serve . . . very little respect (and even less trust) for the bureaucrats who put them in situations that even call
for them to make the type of decisions we are discussing.
I also realize that, individually, many members of our armed services will act according to their oath and not act on immoral orders. And, I'm quite
certain those that are no longer active will not fall in line with any orders given to active members.
That said, let me give you a domestic situation where I can see the military acting against Americans The following is about a West Point Center for
Terrorism paper that outlines a new danger to America. (I thought I had a link to the actual paper, but I guess not . . . You may have seen this, as
I know this has been posted on ATS at some point, as well.) In the report it talks about "far-right anti-federalists", their love of individual
freedoms, and the silly notion of self-governance:
West Point Study
It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural
tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.
Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future
oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.
So, one of our own academies has now likened those that believe in the bill of right as domestic terrorists and I'm sure you are familiar with the
DHS's definitions on possible domestic terrorists. Now, the us vs. them and an inferior outgroup has been created. You are in line with the current
gov . . . or you are a terrorist. No longer just an American who disagrees with policy. This study came about the same time the current firearm
So, if we do have something like economic collapse due to our crushing debt and the gov decides to move troops inland to "keep the peace". Obviously,
the first thing will be to secure the cities by disarming "potential threats". I think we both know if this happened, many citizens and vets would
Now it's just not the military taking out Americans on a bureaucratic order . . . it's them doing their job to "keep the peace" or "restore order"
when people rebel or riot. The rhetoric they receive will not be . . . "take it easy on your fellow citizens". Those orders would put them in harms
way. Their directive will be to take care of those that don't comply.
Sure, no one would fire on their own family. However and barring that, I don't think a ground level soldier would hesitate to fire on American's who
may be doing nothing more that trying to survive or defend their property. From then on . . . the average citizen will not view the military has
being on their side, but as an extension of the gov. The military will see civilians as "threats" and any hesitation to the orders will disappear in
the interest of self preservation. It would escalate from there and if you add in armed drones, where kids are pushing the "red button" from hundreds
of miles away, things would get nasty.
This is the reason I say that the miltary will fire on Americans. Not simply an order to protect the gov against citizen's rebellion. The lines
would be drawn and the dehumanizing rhetoric would become more devisive.
Worst case scenario, maybe, but not hard to imagine. Now, do I think we are headed for civil war? No, but it seems the gov sure wants to goad the
populace (at least a certain segment) into action and I'm not sure why. If there was action, the current members would have a hard and quick decision
to make. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes, nor do I trust those in Washington to put the breaks on them if it escalates.
As I said, it's too easy to get good people to do evil when you are taught to trust in the decisions of the authority figures. And once given the
authorization to do what's necessary against the "enemy", there will be a lot of abuses (as in any war).
My hope, as always, is that we are never in that situation to begin with and, if so, you are more correct than I.
edit on 2/25/13 by solomons
path because: (no reason given)