What would it take? - Page 3

lookout123 · 09-23-2005, 12:44 AM

Quote:

The overwhelming majority of American soldiers would refuse under any circumstances to fire on American civilians regardless of their orders.

sorry it took a while to respond. i had to stop laughing first. i don't know what military members you are familiar with, but... well hell, there are a lot of buts to put in there. in the end, if i tell one of my troops to put a bullet in someone because "they are the enemy" and my troop refuses? bullshit - my troop won't refuse for fear of the repurcussions.

i'm not saying that i would tell my people to fire on americans - i am saying that if i did they would either do it or risk being shot on the spot. end of story.

Tonchi · 09-23-2005, 12:51 AM

However serious the issue, the question starting this thread was a rhetorical one. It was not for the purpose of strategic planning. Just because few of the guys here are booting up and racking the rifles the minute somebody asks them a rhetorical question does not mean they are all a bunch of pussies. Few people know how hard they would have to be pushed or by whom until the countdown was actually begun, and we can't even agree that the clock is ticking.

Besides, with the response time this government has shown in Iraq and NO, I will be comfortably settled in Switzerland before the (still theoretical) march begins. With all the military bases being shut down and sold to developers, just how and where do you forsee troops being mobilized for a takeover anyway? You can't start the draft again just to have enough men handy to launch a crackdown on civil liberties, not even with a Republican administration.

But to come right out and answer your question about EXACTLY WHAT would it take to make me fight to get those people out of power, cancelling elections would do it for me. If Bush forced an ammendment through allowing himself unlimited terms in office, that would do it too.

Undertoad · 09-23-2005, 07:49 AM

By the time they got to the point where they were doing anything that radical, I would have put a lot of time and energy into stopping them. But when you look at lists of which governments have gone nuts and started killing people, it's really only a problem in tyrannical dictatorships.

Participating in the process of a democratic republic is part of what stops the government from going nuts and killing all the people. We are "fighting back" merely by talking about it.

Tonchi · 09-23-2005, 04:43 PM

.... and by voting

xoxoxoBruce · 09-23-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

So I take it from this group that with the exception of Wolf, walrus, and myself, not one of you would be willing to stand up and fight under any circumstances. The government could decide tomorrow to murder anyone over the age of 30, and those of you over 30 would get in line for the slaughter. You'd let them kill you, your wife, your children, and your parents. You'd let them take everything you work for, and everything you've ever owned. You'd let them do anything they wanted, and you'd never fight back.

That's pretty depressing.

Oh yes, yes. I'd give my self up and rat out the ones in hiding.

Radar · 09-24-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

sorry it took a while to respond. i had to stop laughing first. i don't know what military members you are familiar with, but... well hell, there are a lot of buts to put in there. in the end, if i tell one of my troops to put a bullet in someone because "they are the enemy" and my troop refuses? bullshit - my troop won't refuse for fear of the repurcussions.

i'm not saying that i would tell my people to fire on americans - i am saying that if i did they would either do it or risk being shot on the spot. end of story.

I can tell you for a fact that the majority of YOUR troops if told that American civilians were the "enemy" and you ordered those troops to fire, they would not only refuse the order, but take YOU into custody. In fact YOU might get shot by your own troops for giving such an unlawful order. How's that for reprecussions?

I served in the U.S. Navy myself and know many people from all branches.

The truth is, troops actually think. No matter how much the government tries to drum that out of them and turn them into automotons, they actually think. They are human. And they will not follow an order to fire on Americans under any circumstances.

Are there some? Sure. There are probably 10%-15% of psychos in the military who would follow an order to fire on Americans, but the other 85%-90% would stop them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Participating in the process of a democratic republic is part of what stops the government from going nuts and killing all the people. We are "fighting back" merely by talking about it.

The GOP has removed all checks and balances in government. This IS a tyrannical regime. They control all branches of government and are wildly throwing away huge parts of the Constitution. They are trying to turn America into everything the founders created it to escape from...an empire that the sun never sets on that practices religious persecution, and has unlimited powers while not recognizing the rights of the individual.

Griff · 09-24-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

I can tell you for a fact that the majority of YOUR troops if told that American civilians were the "enemy" and you ordered those troops to fire, they would not only refuse the order, but take YOU into custody. In fact YOU might get shot by your own troops for giving such an unlawful order. How's that for reprecussions?

That depends on how the troops perceive the civilians they're shooting up. What if the "patriots" have been labeled as "terrorists" by the government and media. Did the media give the Michigan Militia any kind of a fair hearing? Soldiers can only work with the information they have. You and I see the Bush Administration as operating outside the Constitution but remember the US officer corps is made up of card carrying GOP types and the many enlisted who are Dems will be of no help in identifying threats to Constitutional government.

Undertoad · 09-24-2005, 09:52 AM

You have blinders to many of the real checks and balances, but they are there.

The next really big one happens in November 2006. The right's golden boy, Mr. Santorum, is expected to lose by 8 points. Shall I put you in the Cellar calendar as predicting they'll cancel the election?

Radar · 09-24-2005, 10:04 AM

No. But you can put me in the calendar as saying the Supreme Court with Bush's nominees will overturn Roe v. Wade. And as far as the election goes, the re-districting done before the last election is still in place and so are the electronic voting machines without paper trails for verification built by Bush campaign contributers are still in place.

The last 2 elections were fixed, so I don't see why the next one won't be fixed too. The GOP likes to keep the illusion that people are still electing them. Also, my guess is the Republican candidate will be Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

It doesn't matter because the GOP controls Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House. Any insane thing they think of is going to be passed. Every single unconstitutional social program, company welfare scheme, unprovoked wars, etc. will happen, and the Supreme Court won't rule against it.

Government is actively working against the people of America and has been for some time now. But at least until recently we had 2 factions of morons fighting each other. Under Republican control, government has grown at more than twice the rate it did at any other point in history.

Undertoad · 09-24-2005, 10:12 AM

They have total control! So the President could take something CATOesque, like Social Security reform, make it his major issue, and ramrod it right through the Republican congress.

What date would you like for the Roe overturn?

Radar · 09-24-2005, 10:21 AM

Some time after the next selection. Let's say 2010. And the odds of the GOP doing anything to actually reduce the size, scope, cost, or intrusiveness of government are as likely as me to be hit by lightning after winning the MegaMillions lottery twice in a row.

Undertoad · 09-24-2005, 10:32 AM

2010?? I thought they controlled everything, isn't five years a bit long?

Clodfobble · 09-24-2005, 10:42 AM

It might take that long to confirm a second Supreme Court judge. You know, because confirmations are a piece of cake since the Reps control Congress.

lookout123 · 09-24-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

I can tell you for a fact that the majority of YOUR troops if told that American civilians were the "enemy" and you ordered those troops to fire, they would not only refuse the order, but take YOU into custody. In fact YOU might get shot by your own troops for giving such an unlawful order. How's that for reprecussions?

if the troops just woke up under normal conditions one day and were told to go shoot some americans, yes - they would refuse. if the escalation to that order was gradual, they would follow orders.

A) civil unrest due to natural disaster, attack, etc.
B) group of outspoken geniuses who like to loudly proclaim that the gov't has no power but what they themselves choose to allow the gov't to have get louder and more belligerent.
C) group of geniuses are designated as a possible threat.
D) triggering event happens.
E) troops are ordered to squash an apparent rebellion.
F) *bang*

xoxoxoBruce · 09-24-2005, 01:19 PM

You've all seen the black and green videos of the people on the ground being taken out by helicopters. Could you make out the nationality, race or even the sex of the targets? No, they are just targets the guy on the other end of the radio says are to be eliminated. They could be waving an American flag.....no matter....targets.

09-23-2005, 12:51 AM	#32
Tonchi Victim of gravity Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hiding in plain sight Posts: 1,412	However serious the issue, the question starting this thread was a rhetorical one. It was not for the purpose of strategic planning. Just because few of the guys here are booting up and racking the rifles the minute somebody asks them a rhetorical question does not mean they are all a bunch of pussies. Few people know how hard they would have to be pushed or by whom until the countdown was actually begun, and we can't even agree that the clock is ticking. Besides, with the response time this government has shown in Iraq and NO, I will be comfortably settled in Switzerland before the (still theoretical) march begins. With all the military bases being shut down and sold to developers, just how and where do you forsee troops being mobilized for a takeover anyway? You can't start the draft again just to have enough men handy to launch a crackdown on civil liberties, not even with a Republican administration. But to come right out and answer your question about EXACTLY WHAT would it take to make me fight to get those people out of power, cancelling elections would do it for me. If Bush forced an ammendment through allowing himself unlimited terms in office, that would do it too. __________________ Everything you've ever heard about Fresno is true.

09-23-2005, 04:43 PM	#34
Tonchi Victim of gravity Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hiding in plain sight Posts: 1,412	.... and by voting __________________ Everything you've ever heard about Fresno is true.

09-24-2005, 10:04 AM	#39
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	No. But you can put me in the calendar as saying the Supreme Court with Bush's nominees will overturn Roe v. Wade. And as far as the election goes, the re-districting done before the last election is still in place and so are the electronic voting machines without paper trails for verification built by Bush campaign contributers are still in place. The last 2 elections were fixed, so I don't see why the next one won't be fixed too. The GOP likes to keep the illusion that people are still electing them. Also, my guess is the Republican candidate will be Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. It doesn't matter because the GOP controls Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House. Any insane thing they think of is going to be passed. Every single unconstitutional social program, company welfare scheme, unprovoked wars, etc. will happen, and the Supreme Court won't rule against it. Government is actively working against the people of America and has been for some time now. But at least until recently we had 2 factions of morons fighting each other. Under Republican control, government has grown at more than twice the rate it did at any other point in history. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

09-24-2005, 10:21 AM	#41
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Some time after the next selection. Let's say 2010. And the odds of the GOP doing anything to actually reduce the size, scope, cost, or intrusiveness of government are as likely as me to be hit by lightning after winning the MegaMillions lottery twice in a row. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

09-24-2005, 01:19 PM	#45
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	You've all seen the black and green videos of the people on the ground being taken out by helicopters. Could you make out the nationality, race or even the sex of the targets? No, they are just targets the guy on the other end of the radio says are to be eliminated. They could be waving an American flag.....no matter....targets. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-23-2005, 07:49 AM	#33
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	By the time they got to the point where they were doing anything that radical, I would have put a lot of time and energy into stopping them. But when you look at lists of which governments have gone nuts and started killing people, it's really only a problem in tyrannical dictatorships. Participating in the process of a democratic republic is part of what stops the government from going nuts and killing all the people. We are "fighting back" merely by talking about it.

09-24-2005, 09:52 AM	#38
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	You have blinders to many of the real checks and balances, but they are there. The next really big one happens in November 2006. The right's golden boy, Mr. Santorum, is expected to lose by 8 points. Shall I put you in the Cellar calendar as predicting they'll cancel the election?

09-24-2005, 10:12 AM	#40
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	They have total control! So the President could take something CATOesque, like Social Security reform, make it his major issue, and ramrod it right through the Republican congress. What date would you like for the Roe overturn?

09-24-2005, 10:32 AM	#42
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	2010?? I thought they controlled everything, isn't five years a bit long?

09-24-2005, 10:42 AM	#43
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	It might take that long to confirm a second Supreme Court judge. You know, because confirmations are a piece of cake since the Reps control Congress.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)