Is there any military or police members here who can answer this question?

reply to post by BlueRaja

Secondly, we haven't killed 1 million people(or anywhere close to that figure), but that's an entirely different discussion.

I don't care if it was only ONE person that died. We invaded that country without UN approval and based on intelligence that was dubious at best. The last time something like this happened on this scale, Adolf Hitler was the "hero."

reply to post by BlueRaja

And where are these food storage facilities that you think would be mobbed. This isn't Somalia, with warehouses of cornmeal stacked up.

Where do you think the food comes from before it gets to the supermarket?

Our economy is in no danger of having starving masses, so you can dispense with the alarmism.

There are people starving right now in America, but don't RESIST en masse. Instead, they get fed up and do something about it on their own, like go rob a kwiki-mart and get shot by a cop in the process.

Additionally, you're not gonna use lethal force to protect food.

Well, I think I have just tossed that right out the window.

If you are told to guard an empty building with deadly force, you will do it. Wether or not you even realize the building is empty. If you are ordered to use deadly force to prevent a breach of security you will do it, and so would I.

I have guarded food before, and was entitled to use whatever force necessary to keep it secure. If I am standing between the perp and the food, it IS self-defense, and I can kill him if I have to.

If you have pulled guard duty in the Army, you should know this. So don't try to be condescending as if you are the only person who has ever pulled guard duty.

If a mob of people presented a physical threat, then some force would be used(not necessarily lethal force- CS, etc...)

I am not saying that other non-lethal methods would not be employed. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about following the orders of a superior whose job it is to decide when all other methods have been expended, or that the dynamics of the situation warrant it. Would you fire your weapon, believing that your superiors were competant enough to make such a decision? Every soldier is not privy to all knowledge. That is why soldiers follow orders.

I somehow doubt that a "mob" of peaceful folks would take over anything, especially unarmed peaceful folks.

Just because they may be unarmed does not mean they are peaceful. It also does not mean that they are not a threat to the government.

I guarantee you, you wouldn't see soldiers being executed for not killing someone, so stop with the sensationalism

And how can you guarantee this? If it actually got so bad that civilians were being executed, you can bet that those who did not follow those orders would be executed as well. That is not sensationalism, that is clear logical deduction.

Show just one example in recent history of a US soldier being executed for anything, much less for not killing someone.

I'm sure it's happened in the field. But we're not really going to see that on the evening news now are we? And just because we haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean we won't. Let's come back to this thread after the next terrorist attack, or after martial law is declared. Let's see what you say then.

In any event, the onus was on Saddam to prove he didn't have them, rather than on us to prove that he did.

First of all, no it was not. He was the leader of a sovereign nation that posed no direct threat to the United States.

Second of all, HE DID PROVE IT!!! The United States chose to repeatedly ignore the findings of the UN inspectors. Do you think maybe that's why the UN would not sanction the invasion? Hmmmm?


[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat

 

Yes, as far as I am concerned, you guessed correct.

Your anger and hatred tells me there is a whole lot more going on here than the actual topic.



See, the difference between sheep and shepards is sheep have the freedom to make wild speculations, absurd claims, put forth fictitious, theoretical "what-ifs" based in intellectual dishonesty masking a lack of understanding, enjoy emotional, knee-jerk reactions based in anger, claim shepards have said things they haven't and generally talk when they don't understand the subject matter in the first place.

Shepard's do not.



As far as whether you are a sheep or shepard; you've answered that one for yourself.

Ok in order:
What anger and hatred?
Oh, I don't like to be suppressed by self righteous, self imposed "shepherds" on "how I should live my life, because I don't know no better".
You mistake disgust for anger and hatred, but i guess that's the way of the shepherd....too busy herding to actually percieve correctly.

Look who's talking. No wild speculations have been made, no absurd claims have been made, and you and other posters on this thread asked for scenarios, so they were provided for the hypothetical, no one has claimed anything about anyone saying anything they haven't, and you are the one who doesn't seem to understand what this thread is about, yet you keep posting.....

Wow ego much? I guess one could deduce that from your moniker.

Wolf? Goat, perhaps? I know I don't follow, and I have done my fair share of leading under numerous circumstances, but one thing I don't do is shepherd. People want to be led when they don't know where to turn, not "herded" around like a bunch of stupid animals, and you and your sheperd type best get used to that absurd claim, or one day you might find yourself and others like you contemplating this fact while you're hanging from a pole.......speaking of knee jerk reactions in anger...

By the way, calling yourself a shepherd (and it is spelled shepherd, not shepard) just makes you sound like you're off your meds, and if you are, I sincerely apologise for upsetting you. I never intentionally taunt the mentally ill.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Right on brother. If I hear one more time how we don't know all the facts so we shouldn't judge, I'm gonna puke. It seems everytime you ask a so called authority figure to explain their actions you get the same line of crap, to wait till all the facts are in, only to hear the dreaded " all charges were dropped and no wrong doing was found" eventhough it is blatantly obvious that there was not only wrongdoing but a crime. Then they trot out the committee on "how are we going to ensure this type of thing never happens again", eventhough officially, no wrongdoing occured.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, paranoia is often confused with acute awareness.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Spoken like a true fascist. Bottom line is that it is peoples right to protest, and wether the government likes it or not, dispersing them with armoured riot cops, with sticks and pepperspray etc., is unacceptable under any circumstance. And, before you get on your high horse and bring up violence caused by protesters, 99% of the time violence doesn't erupt until the police decide to push people into a corner, or as was proven at the montebello protests, actually infiltrate the crowd to incite violence (yes i know they claimed that's not what they were doing. I guess that one moron had a rock in his hand just so he woul blend in ) My guess is that is the case 100% of the time. Stupid, no. Liars,yes. Really bad at it, but liars none the less.
Wait a minute, the reason they got caught was that they were wearing the same service boots as the riot police. So I stand corrected. They are stupid, too.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

reply to post by bufordny


I'd say more like 5- 10% are on "my" side. I've only met one cop who wasn't a complete jackass, but his subordinates were borderline rabid and just looking for an excuse to try out their new taser. In fact, had it not been for him the situation probably would have ended badly. My guess is when you say to serve and protect, it wasn't supposed to mean against the other cops?

You folks won't be getting any more replies in this thread from me.

As I see it the original post was only meant to draw out posters willing to comment (in a fair-minded and courteous way) ...meant to draw out posters for the intent of heated visious attacks against those very posters that took their time to offer a courteous reply.

Your behaviour stinks



You offenders are now a moot point in my 'lil book of referrences. You questions and opinions no longer carry weight in the grand scheme of life!

Hey, ignore/block me if you will. 'Cause if have U!

Moderator-Note:

We´ve received complaints about the tone of voice in this thread.

Continue the discussion while adhering to this:

Courtesy is Mandatory

Thank you.

If you say so, but it feels a lot like the us versus them mentality hasn't achieved the desired balance of power, so now there are protests.

I'd say any meaningful discussion was over the minute certain individuals decided to fudge the topic rather than answer it.
Unfortunate.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


Hanging from a noose?

Your first personal attack was pretty bad and full of hatred; this post is worse and has escalated beyond anything approaching discourse.

You would do well to educate yourself on the meaning of fascism, a term you throw around and clearly don't understand what it means.

I mean this sincerely, the only person acting like a fascist, is you. You are doing a great job explaining sheep and shepards through your posts. You have read a whole lot into that statement and virtually exploded in anger. That’s a sheep. A Shepard takes the time to understand what it is they arguing about in the first place.

More importantly than that let me offer you some advice; you’re looking like a hateful, uneducated, axe to grind individual. You may not realize this, but most of what your so angry about is coming from you not me or anything I said. A whole lot of your anger has to do with you and your personal baggage around this issue. You have read a whole lot into what I wrote and in the process told everyone else a lot about you.

Let me help you further; sheep and shepards has virtually nothing to do with positions of leadership or “control”. I can see from your posts why you would think so but, you are incorrect.

The whole point of my post was clearly demonstrated by your response(s).

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


Actually, the OP was answered honestly and openly quite a few times. It was you who derailed the thread in the first place with your personal attacks on the military at large.

What you took so much offense to was my post explaining that it's heart breaking that people feel the way they do about the men and women I served with. You claimed I hadn't answered the question and insinuated that had some weight. Actually, I had.

If you’re upset about the direction of the thread, you need to re-read what's transpired here and understand you'r role in it.


[edit on 15-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You have a real odd presumption of anger, hatred, and personal attack, etc., but I guess if I was lying handcuffed on the ground being tasered and kicked half to death (hypothetically speaking of course), I'd be resisting arrest as well?

I don't have baggage, only a backpack and a hockey bag. Not enough "stuff" worth carrying around.

Fascism: A theory of government introduced in Italy by Benito Mussolini in 1922. It's object was to oppose Socialism and communism by controlling every form of national activity.It was anti-democratic in principle permitting no other party to exist and tolerated no other opposition. (not me)

Anarchism: A theory of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than submission to law and authority. (me)

Shepherd:One employed to tend sheep in a pasture. To tend as a shepherd;to drive or gather together.

Anything else you'd care to edumacate me on?

MOD-Note to ALL:

Stop adressing the person and adress the topic. Otherwise warnings/point deductions will be issued.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Actually I have no problem with the military until they start sticking their nose in my business or in other countries under the pretext of freedom and democracy, at the behest of a bunch of corporate a-holes that view the bottomline more important than people, and don't kid yourself, that is exactly what is happening. Average soldiers fault for the situation? Absolutely none. The military in general? A big pile.
And that goes for the cops as well.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Noted, and understood.

Click here for more information.

First off, I'm ex military and I remember no training about which orders might be legal and what to do if I thought an order might be illegal. What I remember is being conditioned to act on each and every order without question or hesitation. And yes, I would have arrested, assaulted or shot citizens if ordered. I was so young and naive I would have assumed they had to be enemies of the state. That being said let me shift gears and address the question from a historical perspective.

Remember Kent State? Ruby Ridge? Waco Texas? The Whisky rebelion? How about when US soldiers attacked WW1 veterans demonstrating in Washington DC for being denied their promised Veterans benefits. And lets not forget rounding up all the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and putting them in concentration camps.

Fears are well founded. Look what Chinese troops did to their own countrymen to put down a peaceful demonstration.

All it would take is for the President or other government official to publicly demonize any group of people, like the Branch Davidians for instance, to achieve public support to use military force against them. And the troops (or substitute FBI, ATF, CIA, DEA, IRS, Highway Patrol, DNR, Sheriffs Dept. etc.) would think they were protecting their country much the same way the sniper that shot Vicki Weaver while holding her infant daughter at Ruby Ridge.

Somebody show me a case where soldiers REFUSED to use force against US citizens when ordered to do so.

Oh yeah. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Muddyrider]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Muddyrider]

[edit on 16-2-2008 by Muddyrider]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by deenamarie53

David Koresch was a pedophile, fer chris'sakes

Allegedly. He never did get his day in court did he? Besides, I think the proper punishment for pedophilia is castration, without pain killers, maybe even done with a spoon, but not execution.

EDIT to add: And what about all the women and children who died at the hands of Federal Authority that day?


[edit on 2/16/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by deenamarie53
reply to post by Muddyrider

 

Muddy....as yer name implies, I'm not supposed to speak up in this thread as I already dismissed myself BUT......you're just muddying the waters with your ancient rhetoric.

Forget the Branch Dravidian in Waco,TX (my place of birth).....the guy, David Koresch was a pedophile, fer chris'sakes......gimme a break!

You're a moot point as well.

g'day.

I see. David Koresch, who I never mentioned by the way, is a pedophile, according to the people that demonized him before they killed him.

Good point. I guess that invalidates my entire post.

I'm going way out on a limb here and guessing you weren't ever captain of a debate team.