The laws are getting askew. What is lawful now is not always right. Thanks to the Patriot Act and Homegrown Terrorism Laws........Of course I sound like a cliche, but I really don't care.

Lawful, yes. Wacked? Another yes.....

Thank you, tw. I had hoped someone would remember Kent State.

Satan has promised me a nice room with satellite tv, satin sheets, and a minifridge.

Whatchoo got? :rolleyes:

I gots a fancy new job with Homeland In-Security...I gets to goes ta work and spy on peeps from the Kentucky Fried Chicken. I'mz a reaal bad mo' fo'. Don't you rat on me tho'. My jobz iz a reeel serious-osity. It's too bad I got mah-self booted from the army, they don't know what they'z uh missin'.

from the Kentucky Fried Chicken.

:lol:

Srsly...:( I can't even make that shit up. Though funny..Fo' Sho'.

How many disapproved of torture and yet openly endorsed Guantanamo? Denied Abu Ghriad until the pictures made it impossible to deny. And then said torture was necessary to protect America. I don't have your optimism.

Simply go back to 2002 The Cellar when the few who were posting accurately denied 'Saddam has WMD' myths AND then used basic military doctrine to deny mythical WMDs justified war. Back then, the majority believed outright lies and doctrine that violated basic American principles. That same mindset also loaded live ammunition in rifles at Kent State and fired on student - killing many who were only walking to class.

I have seen the majority routinely let their feelings make decisions for them. I have no doubt that a significant minority if not the majority of soldiers would fire on civilians. History says they would. Psychology experiences showed people shocking screaming victims only because they were told to do so. I believe history and those science experiments long before I believe your reasoning.

Too many do not understand how to ask embarrassing questions - a need to know why. You saw me actively opposing others who *felt* 'Saddam has WMDs' only because they were told to believe it.

Too many foolishly and openly advocated torture only because they *felt* torture worked. Openly advocated torture even when professional interrogators said torture results in no useful knowledge. Why did so many (if not the majority) advocate torture? For the same reason that soldiers would fire on civilians if ordered to do so.

Did you forget My Lai? You must to believe soldiers would not fire on angry and demonstrating brothers.

This just in
 

From here.

I may have to rethink my position on this and add fuel to TW's fire.

I didn't used to think this could happen, but..

Then a friend passed me this article.

Now, I'm not so sure.

The question is who are you going to take your anger out on and blame? Bush or the Congress that approved it?

:: puts on devil’s advocate hat:: Look, letting the military off the leash against US civilians is not a good thing. That would be bad. Agreed. I am not a military planner, at least not at the level we are talking about. If I were, it would be just plain bad planning for me not to think about a time when I might have to put US troops on the ground in the US. I'd have to think about all the things that would lead me to do that. I'd really have to analyze this. There are times of large disasters, manmade and not manmade, when it is a good call to put troops on the ground, so they can help. Many of us have put forward many assumptions, based on the past, as to what might happen if we put troops on the ground in the US. These are not facts, they are assumptions. We want to validate, or invalidate these assumptions. We do this with things like exercises. I'm sure this exercise will answer many questions about the who, what, when, where, should we? of this course of action.

Just to throw out a question off the top of my head. What happens if MS13 decides to take over every aspect of their turf pulls out the smuggled and stolen AT-4 rocket launchers, and belt fed weapons and kills a fair amount of law enforcement? What if, they do this in multiple cities, synchronized. Hmm...while I'm brainstorming about possible scenarios, what if this same group allies themselves with a common enemy of the US state, say some jihadists from the middle east?

The civilian population of the US has charged me with their defense. Should I let the fears of some of these civilians in my country dissuade me from finding out what is viable, or not, through actual experience? Especially when that experience can be gained without casualties, in a situation where no one will be hurt or killed?

Who are the "we", that are putting forth these assumptions? What are the assumptions? What the hell will these exercises prove, except everyone involved on your side understands the pecking order and what frequency to tune?
If these exercises are to determine how to assist my side, in case of a disaster, and not just practice on seizing control of the country, how will this exercise answer how it will work? Do you really think the John Wayne motherfuckers out here are just going to say, " Duh, whatever you say boss"? I gotta move just because you say so, without a damn good reason? I don't think so, I don't care how many fucking exercises you held. :eyebrow:

Better pick another boogeyman. M-13 is a parasite. They know if their host dies, they die.
No, you're charged with the defense of the country from foreign powers, the police are charged with the defense of the people from internal threats.

No, our oath says "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

'"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Most would do it, but plenty of people would question it. It depends on what is being asked. Training and exercises make those action more like reactions, it is how you learn to stay alive in a hostile environment. I think they would have more problems with Guard and Reserves since they are from the home towns. But hey, I remember Kent State, so I guess anything is possible.

Defend the Constitution of the United States, not the people of the United States. Not the government, for that matter. :haha: