Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

Am I the only one who finds the phrase "fething scissors" disconcerting?

Its coming for you.

That's less traumatizing than the Mrs. Garrison (South Park) version I had in my head...

That's a pretty cool sculpture.. I wouldn't fancy trying to get my hair cut with it though.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'd love to see how a local sheriff and judge plan to deal with an apc... and or one these:

Birdshot?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'd love to see how a local sheriff and judge plan to deal with an apc... and or one these:

Aerial IED, illegally imported SA-7, repurposed commercial fireworks.

Would you like me to go on? You also make the assumption that US troops would uniformally support the government.

I agree Auston. Everyone assume the US military will blindly follow whatever orders or mission its assigned

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

In this country, that fether wouldn't be trusted with a pair of fething scissors.

In this country, he probably has several automatic weapons to accompany his official position.

Am I the only one who finds the phrase "fething scissors" disconcerting?

It was a very bad idea to google that phrase.

It was a very bad idea.

 Jihadin wrote:
I agree Auston. Everyone assume the US military will blindly follow whatever orders or mission its assigned

That's why I keep saying...with what army?

 AustonT wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'd love to see how a local sheriff and judge plan to deal with an apc... and or one these:

Aerial IED, illegally imported SA-7, repurposed commercial fireworks.

Would you like me to go on? You also make the assumption that US troops would uniformally support the government.

Yup, I imagine there would be a massive number of deserters in the event of another Civil War. Not to mention a portion of those loyal to the Government would probably object to fighting against their countrymen.


Its almost exactly what happened with the, previous, Civil War. The bulk of the Army's senior staff defected to the Confederates along with a good portion of the actual army.

The Confederates had almost all of the experienced soldiers. They only lost because the North had a massive manpower and supply advantage, and almost the entire Navy.


A new Civil War would be a very tense situation, both sides would have a fairly equal armament as far as hardware was concerned.

A new American Civil War would be ridiculous...
The people threatening it should grow up and act like adults instead of threatening to shoot holes in the boat every time they don't get to paddle...

 Jihadin wrote:
I agree Auston. Everyone assume the US military will blindly follow whatever orders or mission its assigned

I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens. It was a shining moment in the history of refusing unlawful orders. They gave that guy his star last year.

Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.

Not all Civil Wars are equal, and I doubt the reasoning of 'it happened in 1861 so it will certainly also happen in 2XXX' holds up to much scrutiny. Not all Civil Wars have had the military split, so there are precedents for many different scenarios. Still, it is good to know that the men and women of our armed services, without any actual hint of a need to, have already been considering renouncing any oaths they made because a guy thinks there might be a Civil War because they dislike democracy so much when the other guy wins.

 Jihadin wrote:
Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.

At that point "lawful" ceases to matter. It becomes a case of material benefit, or moral conviction.

 AustonT wrote:
I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens.

I'm sure it took a lot of soul searching and wrestling with complex ethical issues to stand up to an order that was never given, or even intimated.

 Jihadin wrote:
Not going to go as far as saying there be mass desertion from the military. The government was elected by the people so they are the legal government. It all comes down to lawful and unlawful orders coming from high to low.

Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?

 Ahtman wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I distinctly remember that one of the BN commanders in the 82nd told MG Caldwell to go feth himself if he thought paratroopers under his command would fire on US citizens.

I'm sure it took a lot of soul searching and wrestling with complex ethical issues to stand up to an order that was never given, or even intimated.

Also: *cough* Kent State *cough*

Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?

Depends on the wording of the order that comes down to my level. Don't get me wrong now if someone start shooting at the military unit in earnest it will not be a good day for the shooter.


edit
There was a shooter at Kent State

 Jihadin wrote:

There was a shooter at Kent State

That is being debated to this day, and still reflects a degree of unprofessionalism in a police action.

Either way, the point is that soldiers can get caught up in certain orders. I don't mean that offensively, I'm just saying that you can be ordered to do an innocuous thing, and suffer onerous consequences due to unexpected circumstance.

 Jihadin wrote:

Honest question here... how do you know if the order is lawful? Even if it comes down from the Prez?

Depends on the wording of the order that comes down to my level. Don't get me wrong now if someone start shooting at the military unit in earnest it will not be a good day for the shooter.


edit
There was a shooter at Kent State

<tinfoil>
So... what do you make of this?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/us-military-to-run-urban-exercises-in-north-st-louis-residents-hope-it-will-cut-down-on-crime/

Should these exercises be done in crowded neighborhood?
<\tinfoil>
It didn't bother me... *shrugs*

Yet no UCMJ was taking against the unit leaders I believe. Blind obidience to orders does not save a commander or soldiers from prosecution. example is the WWII german military and paramilitary grps


edit
Thats nothing new Whembly. I've been involved exercises in quite a few port cities during my time as a Nightstalker.

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Thats nothing new Whembly. I've been involved exercises in quite a few port cities during my time as a Nightstalker.

Figured that...

Thanks

Why in gods green earth to people actually take the crap that is said from FOX FETHING NEWS and actually think its legitimate.

And why do people even bother posting there crap on forums?

Oh and because MITT ROMNEY is a better option.

Everyone thinks they would be the one to stand up to authority or absolutely know right from wrong, but history also shows those people doing some pretty messed up gak as well. Abu Ghraib, Kent State, Stanford Prison Experiments, Stanley Milgram's experiments on social behavior, that incident with the guy calling a fast food restaurant and getting the manager to imprison and strip search an employee, Diffusion of Responsibility, ect ect.

LOL we need to reread the OWS thread we had a awhile back over lawful and unlawful orders

 Jihadin wrote:
Yet no UCMJ was taking against the unit leaders I believe.

Yes, the idea that, thanks to vague accounts all around, the military would back it's own after having them fire on undesirables during the Nixon era is completely out of the realm of possibility. Of course there is as much evidence to back up the claim the military purposefully covered it up and chose not to charge anyone as there is evidence that there was a shooter.

 Poppabear wrote:
Why in gods green earth to people actually take the crap that is said from FOX FETHING NEWS and actually think its legitimate.

And why do people even bother posting there crap on forums?

Oh and because MITT ROMNEY is a better option.

Can say the same thing for MSNBC...

CNN... is okay.

I think it's funny that everyone thinks Romney is so right-wing, he isn't on the chart.

Great, the thread's turned in to a bunch of blowhards trying to, well, blowhard.

 Jihadin wrote:
LOL we need to reread the OWS thread we had a awhile back over lawful and unlawful orders

ooooo... need to find THAT!

Yes, the idea that, thanks to vague accounts all around, the military would back it's own after having them fire on undesirables during the Nixon era is completely out of the realm of possibility. Of course there is as much evidence to back up the claim the military purposefully covered it up and chose not to charge anyone as there is evidence that there was a shooter.

Since its beyond my time, a different army, a different mentality, questionable actions on both sides and not privy to the orders that were given to NG unit. I cannot debate any further on the Kent state affair.