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.

It's cute how you suddenly withdraw like that.


I don't think my nap has helped my mood much

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.

you can imagine willy wonka if you'd like:
Go on about how there was never a serious discussion about issuing a ROE in continuation of the NOPD ROE to shoot looters. You can also tell me how the DoJ isn't investigating those "shoot on site" order and the soldiers claiming they received similar instructions don't exist.
Or TLR: ORLY?

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.

If you think Obama is better for New Zealand, you may have him.

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

Where is my mirror macro when I need it. Rarely have I seen a blacker kettle speaking derisively to a pot collection.

Wait this isn't the perennial "less filling/tastes great!" civil war?

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/10/analysis_of_kent_state_audio_t.html

A possible shooter that engage the NG at Kent State.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait this isn't the perennial "less filling/tastes great!" civil war?

MGD vs Miller Light?

I didn't see anyone step out of their way to defend the intelligence of this man as has happened in certain other threads on stupid people.

@AustinT: So you are now claiming he was given an order to fire on citizens? It still sounds like he was never given any such orders, which goes back to refuting orders that were never given.

Since you brought up the DoJ, at what point on the flow chart does the DoJ have authority over the DoD? Can Eric Holder just start ordering around officers and soldiers?

Since you brought up the DoJ, at what point on the flow chart does the DoJ have authority over the DoD? Can Eric Holder just start ordering around officers and soldiers?

No. the DoJ has no position in the CoC for the US Military

 Easy E wrote:
I think the Red Dawn remake should have made the invaders the U.N. instead of North Korea. That would have played to their intended audience much better.

Even better, just combine it!

KalashnikovMarine wrote:The UN couldn't sell girl scout cookies in a famine, invading a country is well beyond their capabilities without the US, UK and a few others doing the /actual/ work while the UN's "generals" strut around the five star hotel closest to the battle space.

To be fair, the US does feth all for the United Nations, militarily. It's mostly really poor nations renting out their troops for money, which is why most of the work is actually done by Africans or Indians, though the Chinese have been stepping up lately as well. Wait a minute ...!

Anyhow, less than 1% of UN Peacekeepers actually come from the US, but the US pays the most money. Minor details, but still interesting to know I think.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf

Frazzled wrote:Birdshot?

Badum-tshhh!

Jihadin wrote:There was a shooter at Kent State

Ah, that mysterious shooter that failed to even wound any of the soldiers, with his weapon and ammunition that were never found. And whose presence must have unnerved the troops so much that they casually assumed a firing line position as ordered by their leader, according to the audiotapes.
... please.

Didn't click on the link on my last post eh Lynata. Think it was the same link I made on the OWS thread

Jihadin wrote:Didn't click on the link on my last post eh Lynata. Think it was the same link I made on the OWS thread

You're right, I didn't - it wasn't there as I was writing mine.

However, with that info you linked, isn't it true that the only other confirmed weapon on location belonged to someone on the FBI's payroll?
Also, more than a minute passing between the four shots supposedly discharged by this person and the National Guard assuming a firing line does indicate that the events are not as directly connected as you make it sound. It certainly did not happen in an act of self-defence, else the shots would have been fired in immediate succession - and again, I assume one of the soldiers would at least have been wounded.

Compare the amount that was fired by each "side". I personnaly burn through 4 clips (120+ rds) to get a possible two shooters on one of my tours. Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from. Till you been in a actual firefight you would truly understand the dynamics on how it goes down. Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine. You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.

Jihadin wrote:Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from.

It was obviously not coming from the random students that were gunned down.

Jihadin wrote:You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.

"Identify" how? Who or what did they identify? It obviously wasn't a panic reaction, and neither did they target anything or anyone specific. The orders given to the troops can be heard on the tape. Surprisingly, none of the soldiers seems to have yelled something like "shooter!" or whatever you would expect in such a situation. They waited for more than a minute before taking aim and opening up with 61 or 67 shots on a bunch of unarmed civilians that just happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Or are you basically saying it's okay to calculatedly cut down a crowd when a single unidentified shooter might be in their midst? Note, calculatedly, not out of reflex. Because that is what you are defending.

And that is still assuming that this was actually the case. You're still glossing over the very source you cited as evidence actually hinting at said shots being fired on the students rather than by them. The sad thing is that, if the article's conclusions are actually true, the guy wasn't even an agent provocateur but just a cowboy on government payroll who didn't know what he was getting himself and others into.
Nobody ever even made the claim that they "identified" anyone or that they saw a guy with a pistol or heard gunshots before. Not even the Guardsmen that were interviewed. That's all just you trying to find reasons.

Jihadin wrote:Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine.

If yours is different to this?

See, right now it just feels like you are defending this reaction out of esprit du corps, simply dismissing an obvious and admittedly ugly thing that happened that was not supposed to happen. It's not an isolated case either; apparently those were some crazy days back then, and the moral difference between stabbing unarmed protesters with a bayonet and pulling a trigger on them is rather slim imho. Something like this should not just be swept under the rug, lest you run the risk of suffering a repetition. Awareness of errors in the past is key to future success.

Maybe I side with them Lynata because I've been in similiar situations.

 Jihadin wrote:
Compare the amount that was fired by each "side". I personnaly burn through 4 clips (120+ rds) to get a possible two shooters on one of my tours. Also took a minute to figure out where the firing was coming from. Till you been in a actual firefight you would truly understand the dynamics on how it goes down. Of course your idea of "assuming a fire line" might differ then mine. You bring the most fire power online as fast as you can to suppress the "enemy" once you identify the source.

See there's your problem right there. You're not sure until you nuke the site from orbit.

I be screaming for a nuke when my soldiers and I are at this point

Why don't we start a campfire and sing some songs?

We can't....they come out at night...mostly....we need to prepare the defense




It might not be enough

The weirdest thing about that nutter's comments in the OP is that he's claiming he needs the extra money to maintain law and order once the order for UN takeover is given. As in he needs the money for when the jackbooted UN thugs takeover and he needs to make sure the protestors are kept under control.

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

Or doing what your mates are doing. Most of the time whole military divisions will be loyalists or rebels. In some units it might break down to the squad level which side they join, but I don't think I've ever seen individual soliders moving from one side to the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
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.

Yep.

I read something similar one time about slavery and other immoral regimes. Everyone assumes if they were made slaves they'd rise up, or that they'd never, ever have slaves of their own. Yet history shows very few slaves throw off their chains (or even try to) and even fewer slaveowners ever release them.

It's very easy to be a paragon of morality when you view the situation from afar, and have nothing to lose from your moral conviction. People actually in that situation generally invent some kind of moral reasoning that explains what they're doing is actually okay.

Or doing what your mates are doing. Most of the time whole military divisions will be loyalists or rebels. In some units it might break down to the squad level which side they join, but I don't think I've ever seen individual soliders moving from one side to the other.

NCO and Officer chain will prevent majority of what your talking about. It'll be individuals who are more likely switch sides incase of a "Civil War" in the US. Incase a governor calls up his state national guard units to facilitate a state seperation he/she pretty much will have a "stagnate" unit. It all comes down to lawful/unlawful orders that would be issued from above.

 Lynata wrote:
Anyhow, less than 1% of UN Peacekeepers actually come from the US, but the US pays the most money. Minor details, but still interesting to know I think.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf

Actually the US only pays UN dues in proportion with every other country by GDP. So as much of my income goes to the UN as any US citizen does.

Not long ago that wasn't true - US citizens actually paid a lower percentage of their GDP than any other country as the US successfully lobbied for a rule that said no country could pay more than 22.5% of the total UN bill, which only applied to the US, who at that time represented more than 22.5% of world GDP. With the rise of China and strong growth across developing countries in Asia in general that no longer applies though.

I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"

You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:

If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!

To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!

 Jihadin wrote:
NCO and Officer chain will prevent majority of what your talking about. It'll be individuals who are more likely switch sides incase of a "Civil War" in the US. Incase a governor calls up his state national guard units to facilitate a state seperation he/she pretty much will have a "stagnate" unit. It all comes down to lawful/unlawful orders that would be issued from above.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. The point is you don't get individual soldiers within the 101st Airborne picking sides. The whole lot will go one way or the other. Sometimes you get splits further down the chain, maybe in particularly fractious circumstances getting down to the squad level, but I've never seen it split at the individual level, with each grunt making his own choice.

And as dogma pointed out, by the time government sovereignty has been called into doubt the idea of "lawful/unlawful" orders has become a nonsense. It becomes a matter of personal gain (if I bring my troops to your cause I get to be a general? sweet!) or personal conviction (for Virginia!), or as I added to his point, doing what your mates are doing (the 101st Airborne is remaining loyal and so each soldier in there will by and large go along with that).

Civil war? In Texas?

You guys had better start buildin' a sentry!

But seriously, WTF? Civil war? This prat is talking out of their arse.

 Wolfstan wrote:
I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"

You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:

If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!

To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!

Well, constant paranoia about the government's motives is largely how we got - and keep - those freedoms.

Both sides do it, and both sides tend to overdo it. With Bush, it was all about how the Patriot Act's turning us into North Korea. With Obama, it's all about how he's a communist socialist Muslim Kenyan infiltrator.

Ah yes, the United Nations. I hate them! If Obama wants to draft in United Nations troops, I say take to the streets, find anyone who has immigrated from the United Nations, and lynch them! And burn the holy book of the UN too.

While I have a pretty solid dislike of the UN, this is a tad silly.

 Wolfstan wrote:
I think it's time to introduce to the world "Dakka's law"

You've heard of "Godwin's law" about the Nazi theory and the internet? Well I give you "Dakka's law". "What is this Dakka's law?" I hear you say. Dakka's law is this:

If you get a group of American's together on a forum, you can guarantee that at some point, usually a couple of pages in, that comments about their government being out to get them appear. Even though you hold yourselves up to the leaders of the free world and what it has to offer. Even though the rest of the world sit back in amazement at the types of freedoms your Constitution give you, for anything and everything, You still manage to come across as a country on the verge of a dictatorship!!!

To quote Matty...fething hell!!! You want the bloody moon on a stick!!!

This must be a new phenomen purely contrived by late 20th century and early 21st century Americans.

Some Tea Party Lunatic wrote:Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

Edit: I have no idea why "wtf" is in my quote box.

I remember a month or two ago in a similar thread, that somebody (I think it was Auston) laughed at the idea of UN troops imposing Obama's will to curb firearms in the USA.
I remember agreeing with him and replying with this:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah x1000

Civil war? hahahahahahahahah x1000

I need to get to Texas, a career as a judge is on the cards. I can spell Texas and I know the difference between El Paso the town, and El Paso the mexican food company. Do I qualify