Do You Believe Americans Would Stand Up Against the US Military......

There are many times more ex military who are retired, discharged and living a civilian life today than there are current deployed, active, guard and reserve service members.
If there are two million active duty, guard and reserve service members, there has to be ten times that number who are former military, and current civilian.
So the numbers do add up that the current enlistment could or would be resisted effectively by former military members and their compatriots.

reply to post by fmcanarney


But this isn't going to happen. Plus - all those numbers you mention of the former military would also work against a foreign military on our own soil.

reply to post by mf_luder


It will be a mess though if it is ever attempted.
Former military would not abandon the Constitution, plus former military have connections and contacts within the active duty service which would enhance the defense.

All of you have contributed some good stuff. Appreciate it.


But what about those folks or people that follow leaders blindly. During this election I have heard many people say they will vote for Obama or McCain just because of their color or party. I have also heard people say they will vote for Obama just cause he knows how to speak. In other words, the issues the candidates propose is not important. Isn't this called blind devotion?

Couldn't blind devotion help to turn many of the military against its citizen?

Not only that couldn't blind devotion also turn citizens against citizens? Haven't we seen examples of this in this election.

And what about fear? Many citizens fear even walking outside at night because something might happen to them. Could you imagine what they would feel if they saw the military and its arsenal standing at their front door?

So you are telling me that when an order is issued for you to enact Martial Law you will not follow your orders?

I was in the Navy for 10 years. In that 10 years I have spent many hours on watch in various scenarios. I can assure you that any civilian that was where he/she was not supposed to be, we removed them most times forcefully because that is what we were told to do.

It will not be as open as we are at war with the US citizens, the orders will be given in such manner that you feel that you are protecting the citizens from themselves. As much bravado as you may have on this board when it comes down to it you will do what you are told.

reply to post by Doom and Gloom


There's a difference, a strong difference between 1) Following orders to enact martial law and 2) Acting violently and illegally toward American citizens to cause them harm.

Martial Law does not equal Military vs. US Citizens and death and destruction.

If there is a "martial law" at anytime in the forseeable future - it's going to be us out there on the streets. The Army.

Here's a scenario for ya.

A gung-ho National Guard Captain orders me and my squad to open fire on a group of civilians.

My response would be, "What do you think is easier for me to justify? Killing my friends and family, or using one round from one magazine to make sure you never give me an order like that again?"

Think it through.

There's a difference between following orders and blindly following orders.

We have the right to disobey illegal orders.

Part of military training is the obedience factor.. even in the civil war people were killing fellow Americans and even brothers and relatives, and they followed orders ..

Face it the military may have a few people defecting the ranks, but 95% will stay and commit murder inthe name of the military.. just like there doing in Iraq.. Killing people is murder even if it in the name of military ..

How long is it going to take the human race to figure out everyone looses in war.

Murder is Murder.. and sadly humans will do it with no questions asked.

Originally posted by E-ville
Part of military training is the obedience factor.. even in the civil war people were killing fellow Americans and even brothers and relatives, and they followed orders ..

Face it the military may have a few people defecting the ranks, but 95% will stay and commit murder inthe name of the military.. just like there doing in Iraq.. Killing people is murder even if it in the name of military ..

How long is it going to take the human race to figure out everyone looses in war.

Murder is Murder.. and sadly humans will do it with no questions asked.

I don't think "there" (they're) committing murder in Iraq. At least we didn't.

I'm also amazed you're able to determine what we're going to do in the hypothetical situation(s) OP presented.

Who are you and what is your background again?

lol you guys are out of your mind.

Originally posted by mf_luder
We uphold the constitution and part of my creed is to defend the American people and the American way of life.

Define, "American way of life".

Do you mean, destroying the planet so that Americans can watch the shopping channel and fill their homes with useless "stuff" while eating a big-mac and cruising down 4th street in an Escalade??

If the military of any nation ever started acting against the population, the best way to put a stop to them would be to stop paying taxes. Without funding from the tax payer no governments can opress anyone.

Unfortunately this would take coordination amongst most ordinary people, which I can't see happening since the only thing that unites us is the government.

Edited for grammar.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by mattpryor]

reply to post by warrenb


I'm touched by your environmental leaning and your display of genuine concern for the world at large.

But on to more adult conversation:

The American way of life is the freedom of our citizens to live in a free society where they can prosper, eat their big macs, watch their televisions and do whatever else they want to do. Part of that "American way of life" is also the guarantee they won't be walking outside to see any "Chinese" or "UN" bases down the road anytime soon. The American way of life is that of democracy under the government as established by the constitution. That is the "American way of life I refer to."

I am afraid that I don't believe the American people would fight against the military on home soil.
And I do believe that the common soldier would simply follow orders, whatever those orders are.

Their job is to follow orders, simple as that. Whatever those orders are.
Yes there is likely to be some resistance (as there was with the highly questionable invasion of Iraq when many military personnel refused to do it). But you can guarantee that they'll be fed some bull about it being "for the American people".

And any scenario where the federal government is actually taking control of the American people will be under the guise of an attack, so both public and military will be under the impression that it is for the good of America.

I'm also not that convinced that the people would fight.
Yes you had the Rodney King riots, but that was a long time ago.
People haven't protested against Bush despite him destroying the constitution.
The election was a perfect opportunity. And even the way they handled Katrina should have caused dissent.

If (and it's a big IF in my opinion) Martial Law came about, the largest number of the American people are too dumb to notice that this act is against them. They simply won't understand it and will follow orders.

The Rodney King thing was clear injustice, nothing questionable about it. Whatever they use to create Martial Law wouldn't be so obviously fake and wouldn't leave so many people to question the motive.

"The American way of life" is unsustainable and self destructive.

watch these video clips

Endgame, Part 1

Endgame, part 2

I agree we should all be free but does freedom mean giving up our planet in the pursuit of material and media bliss?

Hi There,

I don't know why I keep responding to these kinds of threads, I really should just stay out of it, because all I do is keep repeating what I fully believe. What I believe will become apparent over the post...

To offer an assumption as to what might play out if the president ordered nation-wide martial law for political adavantage, I would suggest that the higher ranks in the military echelons would be more than capable of discerning the 'rightness' of the action. I would further suggest that they would not enforce a nation-wide martial law without both undoubtable proof and necessity for such an implementation and enforcement being made public. Also, they would need state-sanctioned immunity against law-suits that would undoubtably follow.

It is easier to implement martial law for specific areas than it is for nation-wide coverage. A rogue president could cherry-pick the areas he is advised to place under martial law, and soldiers like mf_luder (a gracious nod to you sir) would have no choice but to follow any enforcement order. Of course, he can choose not to follow orders, but that would open him up to all manner of military prosecution (remember, civilian principles are not preached in the military).

Without some form of large scale event taking place, affecting the whole nation, such as riots all around the country, instigation of nation-wide martial law cannot be invoked.

America's problem is the timidity of both Houses that are meant to represent and buffer the people against a over-zealous president. If they had done their job, America would not be in as much fertilizer as it is. They are there to act as the 'checkers' and the 'balancers' for the American people, but what have they checked or balanced? Their timidity has cost America dear, in both finance and life and social cohesiveness. If they had been strong and principled in their job, Bush wouldn't have got away with anything. They'd have been no Patriot Act, no shredding of parts of the Constitution, possibly even, no Iraq conflict, two very important developments that have aided and abetted Bush and his administration to profit at the American people's expense.

Those spineless politicians in both houses should've been campaigning on the streets fighting for both the Constitution and soldiers like 'Luder', neither of which have a voice to be heard...the people and their representatives are their voice, but remained silent when it mattered the most. Martial law itself is nothing to fear, silence from those whom are supposed to represent you is. Just look where silence and inaction has got you.

If you don't want your nation to slide ever closer to the gaping maw of the abyss, then the people had better start kicking some major political ass, especially that in both houses. They are wholly untrustworthy and unreliable, and they betrayed the American nation, its Constitution, and its future. It's up to you!

Best wishes

this comes from a press conference from Homeland Security during Katrina.....

For the past 125 years, approximately, it has been the public policy of our nation, reflected in numerous statutes, but most particularly the posse comitatus statute, that our active duty military forces ordinarily do not engage in law enforcement activity

Notice the word ordinarily

And under truly extraordinary circumstances, occurring once in a generation typically, when there's a civil disturbance, the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order. And so there are things that we in the Department of Defense can do to contribute to that climate of safety and security.

I guess declarations will be through executive orders....

But more often than not, when military support is needed to ensure the effective execution of a law enforcement function, it is the National Guard, rather than the active duty military, that is more useful. Frankly, our National Guard, in many cases, is better trained. The National Guard is forward deployed throughout the nation. Our Guardsmen, men and women, are of the communities that they serve. Often they have ties to local law enforcement; certainly they have ties to local families and businesses in the community to be protected. Moreover, the National Guard is exempt from posse comitatus

I think the military are helping out more in natural disasters to make them appear more common in public... Once we get use to them, it will probably easier for us to accept them patrolling our streets.

Same source for quotes

reply to post by elysiumfire


I'm glad you did contribute to this thread. You make some excellent points.

Many upper echelon commanders would want to see proof.

A nation-wide martial would be more difficult to achieve and maintain as well.

But more than that I appreciate your views, like mine, that are politicians are spineless and refuse to stand up for the American people.

Your post is starred.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I would suggest that the higher ranks in the military echelons would be more than capable of discerning the 'rightness' of the action.

I don't accept this. Historically, military leaders have proven time and again that they believe the public are not able to make their own decision, and that we are a threat to the military power and to each other. Military leaders are the ones to demand increasingly invasive domestic surveillance, communications monitoring and so on.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Also, they would need state-sanctioned immunity against law-suits that would undoubtably follow.

Law-suits from who exactly? Under new anti-terror laws, any civilian can be held without charge indefinitely, without legal counsel, without a defense and without an accusation ever made.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Of course, he can choose not to follow orders, but that would open him up to all manner of military prosecution (remember, civilian principles are not preached in the military).

And the civilian principles are now non-existent anyway. He would become an "enemy combatant" just like any citizen on Earth that the US Government deem a threat. This rule is not restrictive or controlled. It means any person on this planet can be called an "enemy combatant" and be held by the US without trial, defense, accusation, evidence..

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Without some form of large scale event taking place, affecting the whole nation, such as riots all around the country, instigation of nation-wide martial law cannot be invoked.

Not true. The US President can announce Martial Law and FEMA takes over. Yes there would need to be a reason, but only to quell potential national public outrage. He could do it tomorrow if he wanted, but outrage would be too severe and escalate dissent.

A part of me thinks that it is too bizarre to consider that Bush would implement Martial Law. But he's already managed to disrupt and even destroy various aspects of the rights of the American people. Many believe he stole the election, and many know he has changed the canvas of civil rights dramatically. He has given the rich power over the poor and effectively taken control of most media to spin the facts or even bury them.

How can anyone believe that he wouldn't enact Martial Law if he had enough to gain?

The only thing that makes me question whether he would, is motivation. What would he personally gain (or those who actually affect his decisions) from doing it?

If it is to prevent Obama gaining power, another rigged election would be easier.

I really want to know what people think he has to gain. And without all the NWO rubbish

Originally posted by fmcanarney
There are many times more ex military who are retired, discharged and living a civilian life today than there are current deployed, active, guard and reserve service members.
If there are two million active duty, guard and reserve service members, there has to be ten times that number who are former military, and current civilian.
So the numbers do add up that the current enlistment could or would be resisted effectively by former military members and their compatriots.

Kind of makes you wonder why they are putting through laws so that former combat vets with PTSD cannot own firearms. Of course, no one would EVER be misdiagnosed with PTSD, would they?