Marine: US military would not kill civilians is a myth

[low preference guy]

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

Read the rest (http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Marine-I-will-Fight-Am-by-Grant-Lawrence-100327-234.html).

[Todd]

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/26/4073188-an-article-i-wish-i-would-never-have-to-write-to-those-calling-for-a-civil-war-this-marine-wants-you-to-stop-and-think?pc=25&sp=0#discussion





This article was deleted by the author. ;)

[Elle]

My only question to this Marine would be

Are you not paying attention to how the Constitution is currently being violated by DC?

Valid points, bogus article. IMO.

[erowe1]

Who is this marine talking about? Who are "those calling for civil war"? I've never seen anyone do that.

[RileyE104]

Is this guy an idiot?

Even if this scenario were to happen, it's not like the seceding states would be the ones to declare war.

Secondly, I think the guy needs a reality check as to who is attacking the Constitution.

He seems like a prime example of Henry Kissinger's little quote about how military men are "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns".

It's funny, because if he were able to respond to my accusation, he'd probably kick and scream and whine about how he's no one's pawn and blablabla, but if he were to turn on American citizens, he'd be carrying out exactly what Kissinger wants.


Guys like this are idiots.
They can't realize that the DOMESTIC ENEMIES to the Constitution are now the ones giving them orders.

[Expatriate]

How does a civilian attack the Constitution anyways? I thought its purpose was to restrain the federal government, not individual citizens.

[fedup100]

None of this matters both sides will see major casualties. This story goes well with the capture of the boyscout militia, the sheep are consuming these stories and chewing it with their cud.

[ARealConservative]

no shit it's a myth.

these people are risking their lives to station troops on most of the planet. You think they give a rats ass about the constitution?

We are dealing largely with young people that have been told that they are heroes and patriots. They are conditioned not to think about orders given. The ones that won't kill civilians aren't being put in front line positions in the first place.

[jmdrake]

The marine in question deleted the original article and posted this in its place.

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/27/4080107-a-rewrite-of-a-marines-call-for-peace-and-pause-that-had-been-reduced-into-sheer-irrelevanceand-an-apology

[GunnyFreedom]

as a formerly active US Marine myself, I'd have to say that the author is partly full of shit.

Partly correct, yes, because there will always be the ones who just "obey orders" no matter what, but the reality is that type is less prevalent in the Marines than in the other branches. Overwhelmingly, warcrimes in Vietnam were Army things because a Marine officer or NCO ordering such things is likely to get himself fragged at his next visit to the head.

There will be a dividing line in all branches of service regarding what portion stay with the government and what portion side with the citizenry, and that line will adjust based on the specific situation at hand. If, for instance, people rose up and attacked the government because they started coining money, well, that would be blatantly obvious who is the enemy of the Constitution in that case and you would see near 100% of the Marines on the side of fed.gov

If, on the other hand, the people rose up because they started trucking folks off to political concentration and reeducation camps, it would again be blatantly obvious and you'd probably see 90% of the Marine's on the people's side.

IF (and it is a big if) there ever were such a general uprising, chances are it would be somewhere in between those two scenarios. Therefore, the only thing that could be said for certain is that in any outbreak of civil war somewhere between 10% and 90% of Marines would remain loyal to the government.

This alleged Sergent seems to have the idea that ANYTHING the government would ever do is automatically constitutional by virtue of the Government doing the acting. Therefore I would submit to you that he is one of the 10% morons that would stick with the fed.gov even if they were loading us into the chambers and the ovens.

Unprincipled ass-clowns like that should never have maded to graduation in recruit training, IMHO. The USMC has a PROUD tradition of bucking the establishment order when that order threatens the Constitution -- Smedly D Butler is still celebrated as a great hero of the Marine Corps to this very day.

This Sgt C ass-hat can FOAD for all I care. :mad:

[low preference guy]

The marine in question deleted the original article and posted this in its place.

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/27/4080107-a-rewrite-of-a-marines-call-for-peace-and-pause-that-had-been-reduced-into-sheer-irrelevanceand-an-apology

Reading the rewrite probably isn't worth it. It's like reading a politician's apology for having sex with a whore. They just say what they have to say.

[Anti Federalist]

The marine in question deleted the original article and posted this in its place.

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/27/4080107-a-rewrite-of-a-marines-call-for-peace-and-pause-that-had-been-reduced-into-sheer-irrelevanceand-an-apology

From his new article:


We lace up our boots every morning in an attempt to preserve the freedoms that democracy has awarded us. We all love our country, and we would give our lives to protect it and its way of life.


Clueless, obviously.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

A real military man would not submit an article like that anonymously. If he truly believes that killing Americans on American soil is protecting the Constitution, he will get "fragged" long before he gets the chance to murder us. This is most likely blowback propaganda for the growing Oath Keepers movement.

Consider it enemy chatter.

[Anti Federalist]

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

Read the rest (http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Marine-I-will-Fight-Am-by-Grant-Lawrence-100327-234.html).

Of course he would.

The ones that said "no" get shipped off overseas.

The system will happily attempt to slaughter us all, given the chance.

The killed a million plus Iraqis without even batting an eyelash.

You think you and yours mean shit to them?

[awake]

If any one has ever looked at death tolls of civilians vs enemy combatants in any war, it is quite clear what soldiers are designed to do. They are a weapon to be used against civilians, not protect them.

The A-bomb comes a close second.

[Anti Federalist]

From the new article:


The senatorial elections are coming in November 2010. Everyone who feels passionately about this country , one way or the other, should get out and vote for who THEY think will best represent them . The same in November of 2012. This is your Constitutional right - this is your step in democracy. You get to choose who represents you and your views in the Government.

I joined AIPAC? When the hell did that happen?

[nate895]

If any one has ever looked at death tolls of civilians vs enemy combatants in any war, it is quite clear what soldiers are designed to do. They are a weapon to be used against civilians, not protect them.

The A-bomb comes a close second.

It ought to be pointed out that most civilian deaths in most wars wind up being from starvation and disease more than direct actions of soldiers. In fact, up until the twentieth century, more deaths, even in the ranks of the soldiers, were from starvation and disease than any combat.

Also, prior to the War for Southern Independence, slaughters of civilians were always considered ungentlemanly and were looked down upon by everyone. If you were an officer who did such a thing, it would most likely lead to, at the very least, a dead end promotion wise.

[tmosley]

The author of this article should be hung for treason. God damned terrorist.

[Anti Federalist]

Anybody got the first article cached anywhere?

[Chieppa1]

Just my opinion from my experience. But I see a lot less "free-thinking" armed forces members then I would like.....My friends spend their time dressed in uniform, going to bars and trying to talk the bartender into free drinks. Then pick a fight. But I know that's not the norm. Just very disheartening.

[AuH20]

All the militias and disgruntled gun owners should congregate on the mall with their weapons and let the TPTB attempt their disarming. I would pay to see this. Half a million gun owners vs. Fed and police. No silly propaganda antics.

[Chieppa1]

All the militias and disgruntled gun owners should congregate on the mall with their weapons and let the TPTB attempt their disarming. I would pay to see this. Half a million gun owners vs. Fed and police. No silly propaganda antics.

You'd see a lot of those FEDS and police jump ship pretty quick.

[erowe1]

The author of this article should be hung for treason.

If he ever actually followed through with his threats, then I would definitely support that. As it is now, he's just some guy spouting off.

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin519.htm


Commander Cunningham also highlighted the results of his 29 Palms Survey (conducted in 1994), in which more than 20% of those combat-trained Marines surveyed stated that they would fire upon American citizens in order to confiscate their firearms if ordered to do so and, if required, would swear allegiance to the United Nations. Cunningham said he feared that if those same questions were asked of our Marines today, the percentage would be even higher.

[Dr.3D]

as a formerly active US Marine myself, I'd have to say that the author is partly full of shit.

Partly correct, yes, because there will always be the ones who just "obey orders" no matter what, but the reality is that type is less prevalent in the Marines than in the other branches. Overwhelmingly, warcrimes in Vietnam were Army things because a Marine officer or NCO ordering such things is likely to get himself fragged at his next visit to the head.

There will be a dividing line in all branches of service regarding what portion stay with the government and what portion side with the citizenry, and that line will adjust based on the specific situation at hand. If, for instance, people rose up and attacked the government because they started coining money, well, that would be blatantly obvious who is the enemy of the Constitution in that case and you would see near 100% of the Marines on the side of fed.gov

If, on the other hand, the people rose up because they started trucking folks off to political concentration and reeducation camps, it would again be blatantly obvious and you'd probably see 90% of the Marine's on the people's side.

IF (and it is a big if) there ever were such a general uprising, chances are it would be somewhere in between those two scenarios. Therefore, the only thing that could be said for certain is that in any outbreak of civil war somewhere between 10% and 90% of Marines would remain loyal to the government.

This alleged Sergent seems to have the idea that ANYTHING the government would ever do is automatically constitutional by virtue of the Government doing the acting. Therefore I would submit to you that he is one of the 10% morons that would stick with the fed.gov even if they were loading us into the chambers and the ovens.

Unprincipled ass-clowns like that should never have maded to graduation in recruit training, IMHO. The USMC has a PROUD tradition of bucking the establishment order when that order threatens the Constitution -- Smedly D Butler is still celebrated as a great hero of the Marine Corps to this very day.

This Sgt C ass-hat can FOAD for all I care. :mad:

I believe it would also have a lot to do with who's news the Marines were allowed to absorb. If it were only the government sponsored news, then they would fight against civilians simply because they had been led to believe the civilians were in violation of the constitution.

[tmosley]

If he ever actually followed through with his threats, then I would definitely support that. As it is now, he's just some guy spouting off.

If calling for the murder of American citizens by the armed forces isn't treason, then I don't know what is.

He also fails miserably at understanding what the constitution is.

[catdd]

I hope that marine understands that he has a family too.

[tremendoustie]

as a formerly active US Marine myself, I'd have to say that the author is partly full of shit.

Partly correct, yes, because there will always be the ones who just "obey orders" no matter what, but the reality is that type is less prevalent in the Marines than in the other branches. Overwhelmingly, warcrimes in Vietnam were Army things because a Marine officer or NCO ordering such things is likely to get himself fragged at his next visit to the head.

There will be a dividing line in all branches of service regarding what portion stay with the government and what portion side with the citizenry, and that line will adjust based on the specific situation at hand. If, for instance, people rose up and attacked the government because they started coining money, well, that would be blatantly obvious who is the enemy of the Constitution in that case and you would see near 100% of the Marines on the side of fed.gov

If, on the other hand, the people rose up because they started trucking folks off to political concentration and reeducation camps, it would again be blatantly obvious and you'd probably see 90% of the Marine's on the people's side.


IF (and it is a big if) there ever were such a general uprising, chances are it would be somewhere in between those two scenarios. Therefore, the only thing that could be said for certain is that in any outbreak of civil war somewhere between 10% and 90% of Marines would remain loyal to the government.


What about the question of who initiated violence? What if a group peacefully declared independence, on their own land, and then were attacked by the federal government, for example?

I would hope that marines would defend whoever was being attacked from whoever was doing the attacking.



Smedly D Butler is still celebrated as a great hero of the Marine Corps to this very day.

I am very glad to hear this. I consider him a hero as well.

[Pericles]

How does a civilian attack the Constitution anyways? I thought its purpose was to restrain the federal government, not individual citizens.

Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, law enforcement personnel are classified as civilian, and not as combatants.

[wizardwatson]

I should have my sister, currently training as an MP, go taze this jarhead.

[nate895]

Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, law enforcement personnel are classified as civilian, and not as combatants.

Unless they are members of a "militarized" police force, such as the Coast Guard or SWAT teams.

[Anti Federalist]

All the militias and disgruntled gun owners should congregate on the mall with their weapons and let the TPTB attempt their disarming. I would pay to see this. Half a million gun owners vs. Fed and police. No silly propaganda antics.

I support and endorse this idea.

[ronpaulhawaii]

All the militias and disgruntled gun owners should congregate on the mall with their weapons and let the TPTB attempt their disarming. I would pay to see this. Half a million gun owners vs. Fed and police. No silly propaganda antics.

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

except


Will people be carrying guns?

Because it is the right of all people to keep and bear arms, we fully support the peaceful carrying of firearms where allowed by law. However, because Washington DC's overly oppressive laws prohibit carrying firearms in public, We cannot promote or condone carrying firearms at the march in Washington DC (DON'T DO IT!) However, if not prohibited by law at any of our satellite marches, we fully support the peaceful carrying of arms.

[phill4paul]

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

except

LOL. Of course.:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

LOL. Of course.:rolleyes:

Exactly.

Well, we're pretty much hemmed up now, aren't we?

Can't say you're going to carry out an act of civil disobedience, just talking about it is enough to get you locked up.

[Pericles]

Unless they are members of a "militarized" police force, such as the Coast Guard or SWAT teams.

Section II.-Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia , shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

How do police and SWAT qualify as combatants?

They don't fall under the command of the regular armed forces, and how is the ICRC going to notify other parties to a non existant conflict?

Do the police operate under the constraints of the laws of warfare?

[dwdollar]

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

[magoo7042]

is this it?

It's been said that the military is always preparing for war. That is true. We prepare for combat every day. We ran 5 miles today to the rifle range and shot nearly 200 rounds a piece at targets and then ran back. However, we also pray for peace. I would love one day to be completely unnecessary. But alas, I am a realist, and I know that day will never come.

The headlines of the last week have reminded me more of glimpsing at the S2 Daily Briefing Sheets while in theater or the Al-Jazeera than the NY Times or the Washington Post. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in.

Before I get into the main premise of this article - I need to make two statements here.
First and foremost , when it comes to the back and forth of who did what to whom and why - I don't give a @!$%#. It doesn't change the action. In life we're judged by our actions, nothing more, nothing less. One of the greatest things of the military is when it comes to an enemy, the politics behind the situation - don't matter in accomplishing that mission. For the military , life is simple in that regard.

Secondly, Regardless of your political ideology, you've earned the right as US Citizens to say your piece - no matter how wrong it may be. That is your right, and I will give my life to protect it.

But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don't go our way. That's life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That's the way things work.

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Now with that vision in mind, stop by your local Marine Corps base, being they will be the first military units you'd face in an all out 'civil war' . Look at them for a moment, examine their 'work environment' . They're running the track, they're climbing ropes, they're grappelling with each other in mock hand-to-hand combat, and shooting targets while moving in raid lines on a daily basis. Nearly everyone on that base, down to our 'secretaries' has a combat award of one type or another, they've faced some of the most stressful situations on Earth where succumbing to the stress can get you killed, and they flourished.

Now ask yourselves and be honest - when is the last time you've run anything other than late to work, climbed anything other than a flight of stairs, grappelled with anything other than a paper jam, and shot off anything other than your mouth? When's the last time you were in any situation more stressful than a traffic jam?
Now I'm not blaming you for your career choice, not in the least. I can't think of a single job that's not useful in some way or another. I just want you to simply compare and contrast your work environment with ours and ask yourselves "Who is better suited to win this battle ?" We both know the answer here, and if you doubt that answer, look at the results from Fallujah in 2004. Over 1200 of them 'lost' and we 'lost only 28. That's a 'win-ratio' of almost 60-1, and they've been fighting their whole lives.

Put this in another scenario. You and your officemates think your local pro football team sucks , so you put together your own team of the best your company has and challenge them to a game. Even if your team might be good, they're professionals. This is their job. Your job is to answer phones and type on a keyboard. In short, they've forgotten more than you will ever know about football. The result, will be a slaughter for you, and a practice for them. But at least you'll get a chance to sit at home, ice your wounds and say 'whew I never should've done that!'

Not so with combat. The results of combat are far...FAR..more permanent. There are no second chances, no time for regrets, and no do-overs. This is not Call of Duty.

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.
I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.c...p=0#discussion

[nate895]

Section II.-Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia , shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

How do police and SWAT qualify as combatants?

They don't fall under the command of the regular armed forces, and how is the ICRC going to notify other parties to a non existant conflict?

Do the police operate under the constraints of the laws of warfare?

SWAT would qualify under section 3 here, and in other places they'd be consider militia by default (I'll look that up). Also, the police forces of several microstates, such as Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino, are "militarized" police forces in that they serve both as law enforcement and as the military.

As far as operating under the laws of war, they do not for law enforcement purposes, and criminals would be considered unlawful combatants anyway, which the police wouldn't have to treat them as POW's even if the police are militarized.

[Vessol]

You biggest misconception is your belief that we are a democracy.

[tpreitzel]

is this it?

It's been said that the military is always preparing for war. That is true. We prepare for combat every day. We ran 5 miles today to the rifle range and shot nearly 200 rounds a piece at targets and then ran back. However, we also pray for peace. I would love one day to be completely unnecessary. But alas, I am a realist, and I know that day will never come.

The headlines of the last week have reminded me more of glimpsing at the S2 Daily Briefing Sheets while in theater or the Al-Jazeera than the NY Times or the Washington Post. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in.

Before I get into the main premise of this article - I need to make two statements here.
First and foremost , when it comes to the back and forth of who did what to whom and why - I don't give a @!$%#. It doesn't change the action. In life we're judged by our actions, nothing more, nothing less. One of the greatest things of the military is when it comes to an enemy, the politics behind the situation - don't matter in accomplishing that mission. For the military , life is simple in that regard.

Secondly, Regardless of your political ideology, you've earned the right as US Citizens to say your piece - no matter how wrong it may be. That is your right, and I will give my life to protect it.

But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don't go our way. That's life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That's the way things work.

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Now with that vision in mind, stop by your local Marine Corps base, being they will be the first military units you'd face in an all out 'civil war' . Look at them for a moment, examine their 'work environment' . They're running the track, they're climbing ropes, they're grappelling with each other in mock hand-to-hand combat, and shooting targets while moving in raid lines on a daily basis. Nearly everyone on that base, down to our 'secretaries' has a combat award of one type or another, they've faced some of the most stressful situations on Earth where succumbing to the stress can get you killed, and they flourished.

Now ask yourselves and be honest - when is the last time you've run anything other than late to work, climbed anything other than a flight of stairs, grappelled with anything other than a paper jam, and shot off anything other than your mouth? When's the last time you were in any situation more stressful than a traffic jam?
Now I'm not blaming you for your career choice, not in the least. I can't think of a single job that's not useful in some way or another. I just want you to simply compare and contrast your work environment with ours and ask yourselves "Who is better suited to win this battle ?" We both know the answer here, and if you doubt that answer, look at the results from Fallujah in 2004. Over 1200 of them 'lost' and we 'lost only 28. That's a 'win-ratio' of almost 60-1, and they've been fighting their whole lives.

Put this in another scenario. You and your officemates think your local pro football team sucks , so you put together your own team of the best your company has and challenge them to a game. Even if your team might be good, they're professionals. This is their job. Your job is to answer phones and type on a keyboard. In short, they've forgotten more than you will ever know about football. The result, will be a slaughter for you, and a practice for them. But at least you'll get a chance to sit at home, ice your wounds and say 'whew I never should've done that!'

Not so with combat. The results of combat are far...FAR..more permanent. There are no second chances, no time for regrets, and no do-overs. This is not Call of Duty.

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.
I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.c...p=0#discussion

It seems like it. Nonsense from the deluded and brainwashed. Not all American civilians are fat and lazy. ;) I've never held the majority of the military in very high regard * although I've worked closely with various branches in various venues. I'm NOT speaking negatively of the sacrifice and service of the members of the military here, just the uncritical programming accepted by the majority of its members and misapplication of its force. Frankly, all of the branches of the US military are brainwashed just like the majority of the civilian population. Naturally, the upper echelon of the chain of command wants to preserve the uncritical thinking and behavior so that behavior doesn't vary much except during a time of conscription. Unfortunately, the US Marines are normally called to do the dirty work of the establishment which frequently isn't the same as defending the US Constitution.

* Nor do I hold the majority of American civilians in very high regard either. The military simply tends to mirror the civilian population to varying degrees.

[Anti Federalist]

is this it?

I'm going to assume so, magoo, thanks.

[Wolverine302]

someone should tell that marine that the founding fathers went to war against the establishment, and once upon a time ago, it was your civil and patriotic duty to rebel against tyranny.

[Anti Federalist]

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

But we, being mere mundanes, are just supposed to meekly submit to the violence you and people like you rain down on us every day?

I wonder how long this marine will keep his post when he isn't getting paid anymore?

Maybe he hasn't heard, his bosses are broke.

And that F/18 ain't worth fuck all if people like me don't go and find the oil that runs that pretty little killing machine, is it now?

Be a 40,000 pound piece of shit sitting on the runway.

And if this does boil off, you can bet that my fat, "unprofessional" ass, isn't going to be going to work to make the things necessary for your operation to work.

You'll find yourself on some front line in Texas without ammo, without food, without fuel and with no friends left.

You will, in fact, be FUBAR.

[magoo7042]

I'm going to assume so, magoo, thanks.

np

[tpreitzel]

I wonder how long this marine will keep his post when he isn't getting paid anymore?



Right. The volunteer force really isn't voluntary in the sense of altruistic reasons like defending the US Constitution. The volunteer force is voluntary because of selfish reasons like money. Cut the financial incentives and force many members of the military to return to civilian life and build businesses which employ their peers. Then encourage those former members to join independent militias and serve for more altruistic reasons. ;) m...s

[Liberty Rebellion]

I love how people still think that getting out and voting for who you want to represent you can really make any difference since the majority always wins and if the majority choose not to follow the Constitution ,such as it has since the 31 years I have been alive , then you find yourself in the same shit situation you've always been.

[BetaMale]

What worries me, and this is just another average man's opinion, is that when shit really hits the fan, the government will guarantee the protection (food, water, shelter) for the families of those in the military if they fight for their cause. This will sway many from fighting for freedom.

This is how it has worked in the past.

I couldn't imagine being in this position, as the bravado in me would love to say that I'd stand up for my country first, but the family man in me would say that my family is above all else.

[ninepointfive]

What worries me, and this is just another average man's opinion, is that when shit really hits the fan, the government will guarantee the protection (food, water, shelter) for the families of those in the military if they fight for their cause. This will sway many from fighting for freedom.

This is how it has worked in the past.

I couldn't imagine being in this position, as the bravado in me would love to say that I'd stand up for my country first, but the family man in me would say that my family is above all else.

haha, almost trolled me

[tremendoustie]

But we, being mere mundanes, are just supposed to meekly submit to the violence you and people like you rain down on us every day?

I wonder how long this marine will keep his post when he isn't getting paid anymore?

Maybe he hasn't heard, his bosses are broke.

And that F/18 ain't worth fuck all if people like me don't go and find the oil that runs that pretty little killing machine, is it now?

Be a 40,000 pound piece of shit sitting on the runway.

And if this does boil off, you can bet that my fat, "unprofessional" ass, isn't going to be going to work to make the things necessary for your operation to work.

You'll find yourself on some front line in Texas without ammo, without food, without fuel and with no friends left.

You will, in fact, be FUBAR.

Don't worry, they'll pay him with a nice country home taken from the mundanes. It's always worked for despots in the past.

[Agorism]

In the 1992 election in Burma, the army rose up against its people and declared the election a fraud and declared Junta rule.

Hence, intentions are meaningless. No one at the time though the countries defenders would attack its own people and attack the daughter of the general who founded the country.

Just saying...you need decentralized control and states in control of their army and the president getting no standing army at all. When the shit hits the fan, the centralized government will use its army to the politicians best bet at their won survival. I don't think one person should get that kind of power anyways or we end up with another Bush.