Will our soldiers defend a tyrannical government?

Do I think that the military would fire on civilians? Yes I do. The government has already mastered the art of disinformation. They could spin any uprising they wanted to look like the uprisers are the enemy. I think the better question is, will the soldiers fire on civilians when it doesn't have any money to pay the soldiers because it has gone bankrupt? The military is after all a mercenary military and not a conscripted military.

I personally think that ex-military are more likely to fight back then active duty soldiers. Ex-military is no longer exposed to the military lifestyle of always having to obey any order given to you by a higher ranked soldier without question. I speak as a veteran myself, and an enlisted veteran at that. I met many low ranked soldiers who would just do anything that was told of them.

reply to post by solomons path


I am very sorry to see you go. I could be wrong but I don't believe anyone was gunnin' for you. To my thinking, wakefulness,
comprehension and intuition are on rise, at least with me and from what I seen and heard, many others. These days, I'm not only finding it much easier to connect the dots but, I see way more dots than I ever dreamt were there to connect. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say but appreciate your input.

reply to post by ItsAConspiracy

Will our soldiers defend a tyrannical government?

The oath one takes to be an American soldier/Marine/Sailor/etc. is first to defend the constitution.

I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

From there (depending on branch), you promise to obey the orders of the President... a Governor, and those officers assigned over you.

As far as the question of the OP?

It has to do with personal stance. Does the soldier/officer in question agree with the orders being issued? If so, then following them becomes a non-issue. If not, then there are questions of desertion, rebellion and/or mutiny... all of which are punishable by death depending on the circumstances.

Officers have a lot more to lose than the enlisted. Chances are pretty fair that lower ranks would see a high number of desertions... at least to begin with. Officers would more likely be conspiratorial in their actions to allow more than just one to escape and/or cross over to the other side. During the US Civil War, both sides saw a lot of this. The Confederacy was slow to accept Union deserters and generally forced them to take up shop out in the western theater. In the north, rebel deserters were, usually, initially held in jail before being given menial tasks, mostly in shipyards and factories.

Trust is always an issue.

If the rise of tyranny is gradual then most will support it (frog in pot reapplied)....if it is sudden then perhaps not altho the lessons of Katrina do not support that view. The real answer is how successful a tyrannical government can demonize those whom it seeks to oppress (ie, gun owners, veterans, patriots, etc) and how well it can shut down employment options for those in the military who wish to leave for obvious reasons.

reply to post by solomons path

Assumptions galore . . . huh?

No, mine are accurate…keep reading.

1. Where did I use the word lunatic? You need to seperate yourself from the "I'm a proud devildog" mentality. I'm talking about human psychology. I come from a military family and have family members currently serving for two different countries. Humans are humans and all humans behave through the same mechanisms regardless of nationality or profession.

So, I was right, you have NO personal experience. You’ve never served and haven’t interacted with the number of service members I have. You’re talking about 2nd hand information!

Meh!

2. Read my posts throughout the this thread . . . they are all on topic and directly related to the question posed in the OP. Take the time to watch the documentary I posted on the first page and then argue why somehow psychological manipulation doesn't work on American soldiers.

Except when you wanted to speculate about military quashing demonstrations (never happened and not the topic I responded to) or military engagement during insurrection/secession (never happened and not the topic I responded to).

3. Hypothetical? . . . Recent? How recent . . . ? I've given several examples, mulitple times. You want more recent than Sandy Hook? Iraq/Afganistan? Rwanda? Croatia/Serbia? Vietnam? . . . It doesn't matter. The way the brain works and the triggers to manipulate haven't changed in over 2000 yrs according to history's examples.

I meant the two situations you mentioned above…that I responded to. There is no instance in recent history of military members firing on US citizens. You’re focused on “mentality” rather than reality and I’m telling you that your qualifications to speculate on ‘what military members will do” is questionable at best.

You are quite free to disagree and defend your service men and women . . . individual and as a whole they deserve it. But, I think you need to actually read my posts and if you can't comprehend that everybody's brain works the same because we are all human or have the ability to distinguish between group think and individual dilemas . . .

Why then do you make blanket statements about how the military will react? Do YOU see that we all have the ability to think??

There no need for either one of us to address each other. And BTW - I think including personal experience about my family being sent to concentration camps in Poland (Auschwitz) and Germany (Mauthausen) is speaking from experience. Want more? My father was spit, hit with bottles, and called all sorts of names when he returned from Vietnam . . . how were you treated when you returned home from service?

Good day!

There is a reason. I asked because you seem to be speaking about something you’ve read and not personal experience. I don’t know you from Adam but I was able to accurately detect that you don’t have firsthand experience. Funny how that works!

I meant the two situations you mentioned above…that I responded to. There is no instance in recent history of military members firing on US citizens.

Well, not to jump into this... I agree with Seabag a lot but... there was Kent State,.

reply to post by seabag


I didn't serve in the military. That desire (to be a marine coincidently) was kicked out of me by my father (marine) before I turned 18. My cousins all served. 11 of them in Isreal. 6 in the US. 6 of those 17 still serving today.

And . . . you don't have first hand experience with human psychology or the steps needed to control large groups of people through mental manipulation, dis/misinformation, or guided response . . . that I can easily tell by your "pie-in-the-sky" - "I've asked them" responses. It's also clear you didn't watch the doc or have any knowledge of the psychological studies mentioned in this thread. Nor do you have any understanding how easy it is to make someone do unspeakable things against another human. American or otherwise doesn't matter . . . the point is dehumanization . . . not nationality. In the end . . . nationality is a red herring people use as a security blanket to rationalize their evil acts.

I do have first hand experiences in those fields and arenas . . . your responses in this thread might as well have been canned and dropped into a research paper. Typical and expected for someone who does not know how the mind works.

Your experiences are as a pawn. Pawns do not control their movements . . . and do not see Queen behind them.

Corp and Country . . . right? But, not when you "think for yourself" . . . I guess?

reply to post by ajay59


I fully know where you are coming from. I just think you feel we are futher along in our understanding or "awareness" than I do.

I just don't see it yet. I think there are more people on to it than say, the nineties, but as seen by current threads on here and Seabag's insistance that American soliders are somehow different that every other human on this planet . . . not far enough.

So how many of you citizens are willing to leave your families and defend against a tryannical government? I mean, you think the soldiers should just desert their posts, leaving their families to fend for themselves while they go off and defend you. How many of you are willing to sacrifice your families?

Again, I say, these soldiers are not mindless drones...ask a veteran! They have families to take care of, just like anyone else. The decision to desert one's post is not an easy decision for one to make, especially considering that their families will be left to fend for themselves. Now, that said, some may fight on the side of the "tyrannical" government while others may choose to not obey the orders given.

Some are using Kent State as an example. Of the 77 Guardsmen involved, roughly 29 fired upon the students after their SGT fired the first shots. If this is true, then it was the SGT and 29 of his troops who did this massacre, not all of the Guardsmen. In fact, seems less than half made the decision to fire, while the others did not.

Though the troops, who did not fire on the students, did not necessarily defend them either, they did make the decision to NOT fire upon US citizens.

So, how many of you are willing to sacrifice the ones you love?

America's soldiers seem to have no problem killing defenseless civilians in a desert, I imagine they would follow the "Tyrannical" orders.

Does any one really think that Veterans and Active Military, whom the government labeled as a threat, would side with the entity that is bending them over...no, no we won't.

I do not know, what it is about half of you people...

But every other month when this same old crap comes up it makes me mad as hell and sick to my stomach at the same time.

If those of us who served and are serving, especially active duty. Are willing to go to a foreign hostile nation, and defend the people there, who can not do so for them selves. Would you ponder for a second how much more willing, we are to fight for our own people?



Really...

Having read this article, the following can be stated:

As with many articles like this, and questions that are raised, as to if the military would or would not fire on the US citizens, or follow through with what could be construed as an unconstitutional, or violate national law.

Before I go into what is and is not legal, there are a few things that people should understand:

The military does have a chain of command. That means an NCO can give an order and expect it followed, an officer can give an order, and expect it to be followed. The secretary of the Armed forces can give an order, and even the President of the USA can give an order, and it has to be followed. A senator or a civillian authority can not give an order and expect it to be followed by a member of the armed forces.

And there in lies the heart of the issue of this entire issue, is who would issue the order to break the law, and under what grounds would it either be or not be legal. And who to hold accountable for the actions of said orders and the troops. Do you hold say the nco's or even the enlisted responsible for the actions of the whole, or does it go higher to say the officers and those who make the decisions?

Now there are times, when the military or those under military authroity can act on US soil and it is legal. The first would be during a natural diseaster, when the military would be called in for diseaster relief and to keep the peace. The laws are very specific on such and ultimately they are there as a peace keeping force and for relief of suffering. The other time, where one would see military forces acting as police, is when they have been given the authority to, but in those cases, they are in the grey area of the law, and are technically under a federal marshall, acting as deputies of such, with the full authority and protections of such.

Now comes the question of civil war in the USA, where it would be one group versus the federal government. As with any war, and this has been true since wars have been fought over, ultimately it will boil down to 2 things. The first would be who throws the first punch and the will of the people. And of the 2 it is the latter that will determine the outcome of any conflict. If the will of the majority of the people is not behind the federal government, it will ultimately lose. After all the federal government could not could not afford to have people sacrificing themselves for their cause, giving rise to martyrs and symbols to follow. And then there is the other aspect is the question should be asked, would a military man fire on his own family? Would he pull the trigure on his mother, or his son, or his father or his brother in following the orders of those above him?

Make no mistake that in the event that a civil war breaks out in the USA, that it would be a race between both sides, and as much as many would hate to admit it, the UN would be the ultimate judge. Cause if the UN determines that it is a civil war that is occuring, it would even the fight drastically and neither side would want the bad pr on the world stage.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Well said ADVISOR and seabag! I would understand completely if either of you would hesitate for slightest moment, though I know you would not, it is not a part of your make-up. I apologize for the ones who do not understand that you WERE the people before you were ever soldiers.

There is another important point to be made. If whomever gives an order that is unlawful, unethical or unjust, No man or woman is obliged to follow it!

reply to post by solomons path

I didn't serve in the military. That desire (to be a marine coincidently) was kicked out of me by my father (marine) before I turned 18. My cousins all served. 11 of them in Isreal. 6 in the US. 6 of those 17 still serving today.

Well, all banter aside, I’ve got to respect their service and I do. It sounds like you should know better that American troops wouldn't fire on American civilians.

And . . . you don't have first hand experience with human psychology or the steps needed to control large groups of people through mental manipulation, dis/misinformation, or guided response . . . that I can easily tell by your "pie-in-the-sky" - "I've asked them" responses. It's also clear you didn't watch the doc or have any knowledge of the psychological studies mentioned in this thread. Nor do you have any understanding how easy it is to make someone do unspeakable things against another human. American or otherwise doesn't matter . . . the point is dehumanization . . . not nationality. In the end . . . nationality is a red herring people use as a security blanket to rationalize their evil acts.

I do have firsthand experiences in those fields and arenas . . . your responses in this thread might as well have been canned and dropped into a research paper. Typical and expected for someone who does not know how the mind works.

Your experiences are as a pawn. Pawns do not control their movements . . . and do not see Queen behind them.

Talk about making assumptions!

Well, I must tell you, professor, I do have firsthand experience. I’ve seen firsthand how people respond to orders (both good and not so good) and I’ve been the one giving orders, too. I understand what motivates people and what people will/will not respond to. I’m a former NCO and currently a degreed business manager. My background isn’t in academia (though I’ve spent years there); it’s in the real world rather than secondhand info. I'm not a 20-something kid on here bloviating. I'm a 39 year old grown man with some life experience.

Corp and Country . . . right? But, not when you "think for yourself" . . . I guess?

Corps and Country…damn right!

Corps IS people. Country IS people. Everyone has choices. I’m telling you that the character of the people I served with is, for the most part, above reproach. Especially from people who have no firsthand knowledge to back up their lame assertions.

reply to post by ajay59

That would hold up in a Nuremberg style trial but little consolation if the commanding officer giving the "illegal order" then ordered those disobeying said order to be shot....then again there is a thing called "fragging".

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
America's soldiers seem to have no problem killing defenseless civilians in a desert, I imagine they would follow the "Tyrannical" orders.

Is that what you saw on the lame-stream media?

Nice contribution! Very substantive!

Are the people who carry out IED attacks (often on civilians...many women and children) good or bad? Because the only people US troops kill are murderers. Think of as INSTANT JUSTICE. I bet they're all the same to some here.

Originally posted by Feltrick
So how many of you citizens are willing to leave your families and defend against a tryannical government? I mean, you think the soldiers should just desert their posts, leaving their families to fend for themselves while they go off and defend you. How many of you are willing to sacrifice your families?

Again, I say, these soldiers are not mindless drones...ask a veteran! They have families to take care of, just like anyone else. The decision to desert one's post is not an easy decision for one to make, especially considering that their families will be left to fend for themselves. Now, that said, some may fight on the side of the "tyrannical" government while others may choose to not obey the orders given.

Some are using Kent State as an example. Of the 77 Guardsmen involved, roughly 29 fired upon the students after their SGT fired the first shots. If this is true, then it was the SGT and 29 of his troops who did this massacre, not all of the Guardsmen. In fact, seems less than half made the decision to fire, while the others did not.

Though the troops, who did not fire on the students, did not necessarily defend them either, they did make the decision to NOT fire upon US citizens.

So, how many of you are willing to sacrifice the ones you love?

29 out of 77 doesn't speak strongly for the argument that troops wouldn't fire on civilians. Especially unarmed civilians (4 dead, 9 wounded). I'm not sure why you can't make the analogy, or why you think things are any different now that would make troops not do the same thing.

reply to post by seabag


The "Lame stream media"(mature) is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the army.It doesn't bring up the drone strikes often, which have killed many innocent people, including children. Perhaps I should post the Apache footage, the "brave men and women" in that situation decided to fire upon un-armed civilians with a AC-130. The "MSM" didn't show that too much. Of course not all of the army kill civilians, but there have been far too many instances.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Double

Post