quote:

Originally posted by VietVet1stCavDoc:
The real question is, if you are in the military active, reserves or guard, would you, if martial law is declared, come into my home and take my weapons, if you are ordered to do so?

A brief study of American history would say that some of the present or future members of the United States military, if given orders which they believed to be legitimate from someone having authority over them, would do so.

For example, consider the members of the Colorado National Guard who machine-gunned a camp of mine workers and their wives and children (killing 45, 32 of them women and children) in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914 because their superiors ordered them to, after telling them that the mine workers and their families were dangerous radicals threatening the American way of life (because they were striking for higher wages and better working conditions?). (FYI: Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. All were acquitted.)

Consider the members of the U.S. Army (the 3rd Cavalry Regiment and the 12th Infantry Regiment) who attacked the "Bonus Army" camp in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 1932 during the Depression, following the orders of General Douglas MacArthur, Major George S. Patton and Major Dwight Eisenhower?

There were probably some who disobeyed orders (i.e. firing their machineguns into the air instead of aiming them at the strikers, for example) but there were enough who were "just following orders" to kill a lot of people.

And there would be enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines today who would "just follow orders" and break down your door and take your weapons, if their Sergeant or Petty Officer or their Lieutenant ordered them to do so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fightdirector,

It would be good if the soldiers themselves stood up and sent copies of the Constitution to their leaders then. What is the sense pledging allegiance and life and limb to the Constitution and then coming around saying your commanders can give you orders that violate that document? When you read the Pledge of Allegiance, is it a pledge to your superiors who give you orders? Can Communists and Nazis infiltrate? Can they come here and pretend to be like us and then patiently go up the ladder of status even in the military? How can you know that with your security principles constantly being molded to be like theirs? Is there such a thing as a home-grown Nazi? There was a bold Nazi party right here in America during WWII who gave bold and open support to Adolf Hitler! It was on the History Channel. What did the History Channel say happened to those folks? It said NOTHING! That's because they did not leave. They laid low and had children and remained here. Communists are like that also. Their security principles are so much alike. Study the Patriot Act and you will learn more about their security principles.

When we went into Kuwait, we took control of the Iraqi troops that were there. In one broadcast a soldier was giving an answer for the atrocities that he committed. He said, "Yes we committed atrocities. We are soldiers! We do what we're told!" The judgment laid against those soldiers was that they're still responsible for the things that they do. That is also the judgment of a higher power every soldier will have to deal with once they die.

With all of history, we are now to look back and learn the lessons. Is there a doctrine that states you must obey your commanders no matter what even as the president swears allegiance to the Constitution no-matter-what and then constantly invents policies that reveal what his true attitude is toward that document? Would you be punished if you don't agree with the Iraq War and go AWOL? Would Bush be punished if he makes an oath to the Constitution and then keeps telling us he doesn't want to and doesn't have to keep it? And then he can buy land in the South American country of Paraquay first securing agreement there that he would not be tried for war crimes?

The appeal is to history. First, do you follow the security principles of the Nazis and Communists which principles cost the lives of your predecessors on the battlefield? Do you then accept those rules today and be surprised that it is also costing your lives too?

The Iraq War is being financed by the Communist Chinese. The military is being destroyed under the most ridiculous circumstances under their financing. Their military is accomplishing what they always historically wanted to accomplish WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT! What's happening now is what Joseph Stalin would have dreamed about and never acquired. What's happening now is what Nikita Kruschev would have killed for! They finance the ridiculous wars to destroy our military, and we adopt their security principles, and we are becoming more and more like them, and our economy is being destroyed in the process, while propagandists go all about telling us there will not be Martial Law!

Just like saying, "well we used detainment camps against the Japanese here during WWII!" Do we look back and claim that was something good to do and justified? Do we not say that was a mistake? We detained the Japanese and left Germans and Italians here untouched!

Even with the issue of obeying orders no matter what, LEARN FROM HISTORY! Look at the communist militaries. THEY ARE NOT BEING DESTROYED! Russia knows the issues going on now are fraudulent! That's even why the prez can take so many vacations. Especially if you're in a hot place in warfare under the worst conditions, don't you think you also should take a vacation from the nonsense? Don't you deserve a vacation from struggling for the pride of finally defeating an already defeated dictator who terrified us with his rubber-ducky in no-fly-zones? That's why 19 hijackers never bothered the Mighty Eagle till now. All what's happening now is fabricated and is treason.

Shrinking to dictator-like orders against the document you pledged even your life to support, will not only gain you nothing, you will have to answer on the other side for every drop of innocent blood you shed! If the president died, I would not lose my freedoms. As a matter of fact, I would stand a greater chance of maintaining it. Even my right to worship would be stronger. It is a much different situation if you Bad Boys die!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tmac1238,

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

We are not immune to the pitfalls of other nations and empires. Constant vigilence and dedicated government elected by those that earned the freedoms we enjoy and spoiled this is what has kept us a great nation united. Maybe Im just getting old and dont see it that way anymore and have lost confidence watching the steady decline and corruptness now in the hands of the spoiled generation. I better quit before I really get started. Sorry for the Rant.

I strongly agree with you that we need to keep an eye on those we elect. I'm not advocating that we have blind faith in Government. No, it's the opposite: we should constantly challenge Government, particularly when it appears to stray off course. And that's my point: we are doing that. While I don't agree with all the counterpoints, the fact is that this administration is questioned and challenged on all fronts. That's a healthy sign in my book.

I also agree that many today are spoiled, and many are either too ignorant or too blind to see the potential for abuse that exists. I'm surprised that three isn't more outrage over the Jose Padilla case. Not that he should have been freed; he definitely deserved the prison sentence he received. However, it's the way Government attempted to skirt the Constitution that concerns me. Whether we like it or not, Padilla is a US citizen who is guaranteed certain inalienable rights; and the United States trampled all over the Constitution, prostituted itself in the name of fighting terrorism, and compromised the foundation of our democratic principles. The dangerous part is that the Bush administration did nothing to reverse its policies. In other words, the same thing can happen again to any other US citizen; all the administration has to do is label that person as an "illegal combatant." That's scary, but I don't think it's scary to the point that we need to fear martial law suddenly being imposed. It is, however, scary enough where we have to reverse the policy and get back on course.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Hang in there, and have a good one.

Well said.I think we are on the same wave length
The key words Potential and Vigilance seems to sum it all up. Thanks for your service.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by VietVet1stCavDoc:
The real question is, if you are in the military active, reserves or guard, would you, if martial law is declared, come into my home and take my weapons, if you are ordered to do so?

A brief study of American history would say that some of the present or future members of the United States military, if given orders which they believed to be legitimate from someone having authority over them, would do so.

For example, consider the members of the Colorado National Guard who machine-gunned a camp of mine workers and their wives and children (killing 45, 32 of them women and children) in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914 because their superiors ordered them to, after telling them that the mine workers and their families were dangerous radicals threatening the American way of life (because they were striking for higher wages and better working conditions?). (FYI: Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. All were acquitted.)

Consider the members of the U.S. Army (the 3rd Cavalry Regiment and the 12th Infantry Regiment) who attacked the "Bonus Army" camp in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 1932 during the Depression, following the orders of General Douglas MacArthur, Major George S. Patton and Major Dwight Eisenhower?

There were probably some who disobeyed orders (i.e. firing their machineguns into the air instead of aiming them at the strikers, for example) but there were enough who were "just following orders" to kill a lot of people.

And there would be enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines today who would "just follow orders" and break down your door and take your weapons, if their Sergeant or Petty Officer or their Lieutenant ordered them to do so.

I see you have studied labor history a very important study that defined the times. To bad others havent they might have a much better understanding of how things work and of the backers of the heirachy who lust for control.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
The last President to consider this option, according to witness General Alexander Haig, was President Richard Nixon. He discussed it with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and General Haig, his White House Chief of Staff.

His idea was to declare martial law and order the troops at Fort Myers to put the members of the Congress under "protective custody" to prevent them voting his impeachment over the Watergate cover-up. General Haig is supposed to have told the President, "Sir, the Army will not support you."

Nixon then, with Haig and Kissinger's assistance, wrote his resignation letter and submitted it the following day.

Kudos to Haig and Kissinger. Kudos also to the Republican Leadership who told Nixon that they would lead the way for his Impeachment.

EVERYBODY SING ALONG NOW WITH THE NAZIS!...

Conspirator song:

Let's sing along now!...

Please don't hurt me, Mr. Saddam, I don't want you to crush my bones,
that's a high powered rubber ducky you got out there as you sit in no-fly-zones!

Please don't talk about our conspiracy, Americans! We need to have sex and procreate more of our kind!

I'm too young to die already enduring the torture of the conspiracy theorists, why can't I torture others myself and show everyone else I'm a mental therapist?

If you attack me with your rubber ducky in no fly zones, I'd have to cancel Osama's thanksgiving party and that's a huge expense by phone.

Conspiracy theorists prevent me from resting my traitorous head. Loonies everywhere prevent me from enjoying myself in bed.

They've never stopped doing such damage to America already, our preparation to blame them for its collapse has always been steady.

They keep complaining about martial law coming, upseting our efforts to prevent it from happening.

But when it actually does come with our Patriot Act for its planning, we will be sure to show America that they are the ones they should be thanking.

The looney conspiracy theorists hang around forums and constantly post things no one can understand, like the American people who made a confusing vote in 2006. I can't tell what the message was then, and frankly no one can.

I practiced long to defeat the defeated dictator through tough training, self denial and tears! I practiced first with corpses in morturaries and finally won there after 10 years!

I can't afford to "cut and run" and surrender my war against country that didn't cause 911. What will the world think of me if I don't struggle more against defeated dictator well into and past the year seven?

The looney conspiracy theorists tell me I must join internet forums for discussion, where they would understand that treason is in my mind and mass murder is my mission.

I can't afford to warn Americans where we are headed, destination Third Reich here we come. We have to make the heretic American troops waste themselves away, destined for their LOGAN'S RUN.

I have to make sure Osama remains free and fine and make loyal troops follow the way of Pat Tillman. When was a Nazi ever safe in constitutional security, but they feel safer now after the Patriot Act has been given.

In anxiety clinics for terror all throughout the history of America, they come out now feeling safer, as Americans now head into those clinics since they're told the Constitution can no longer defend against defeated dictators

yea!!! martial law is fun!!! yea!!!

Why then would these Jesuits kill our soldiers for "democracy" when the people don't like martial law? Is the propagandist ready to diagnose the American people? They already claimed no one can understand my posts. They obviously know what my posts say. Didn't they declare they couldn't understand the message of the last (2006) elections?

Meet the people the propagandists everywhere regard with the highest esteem and believe they are the greatest of saints in heaven. The same people you will see in the pictures on the webpage are the ancestors of the ones who put you in harms way so that they can destroy America's freedom:

http://www.TheirSecrets.info/grizogono.htm

Fun Fun Fun in the fluffy chair
Flame up the herb
Woof down the beer
[click!]
Hi
I'm your video DJ
I always talk like I'm wigged out on quaaludes
I wear a satin baseball jacket everywhere I go

My job is to help destroy
What's left of your imagination
By feeding you endless doses
Of sugar-coated mindless garbage

So don't create
Be sedate
Be a vegetable at home
And thwack on that dial
If we have our way even you will believe
This is the future of rock and roll

How far will you go
How low will you stoop
To tranquilize our minds with your sugar-coated swill

You've turned rock and roll rebellion
Into Pat Boone sedation
Making sure nothing's left to the imagination

M.T.V. Get off the
M.T.V. Get off the
M.T.V. Get off the air
Get off the air

See the latest rejects from the muppet show
Wag their tits and their dicks
As they lip-synch on screen
There's something I don't like
About a band who always smiles
Another tax write-off
For some schmuck who doesn't care

M.T.V. Get off the air
And so it was
Our beloved corporate gods
Claimed they created rock video
Allowing it to sink as low in one year
As commercial TV has in 25
"It's the new frontier," they say
It's wide open, anything can happen
But you've got a lot of nerve
To call yourself a pioneer
When you're too god-damn conservative
To take real chances.

Tin-eared
Graph-paper brained accountants
Instead of music fans
Call all the shots at giant record companies now

The lowest common denominator rules
Forget honesty
Forget creativity
The dumbest buy the mostest
That's the name of the game

But sales are slumping
And no one will say why
Could it be they put out one too many lousy records?!?

M.T.V.-Get off the air!

NOW

Did the people who wrote the Constitution you hate so much wanted to destroy the imaginations of the American people by filling their minds with countless tons of needless garbage?

Funny, I thought you Jesuits already said my posts were like that why you can hardly post to any other threads and posts than the ones I made.

By the way, did you see the bold death threats against billions of people by the war-supporters?
http://www.TheirSecrets.info/ac/appealchapi.htm
http://www.TheirSecrets.info/ac/appealchapleowest.htm

I already told the Bad Boys that no one in treason will be able to see it. And that includes Homeland Security.

Hard to break it to the men and women you guys put in harm's way, huh?

If not, you should be exercising your freedom and sniffing glue!

go to a psychiater should support the iranian backed teror?The US is doing the riht . somethimes a litle naiv but corect

quote:

Originally posted by DougSabbag:
You know, there is some (actually a REAL lot) merit to the concerns expressed. Currently, Americas' feet are being "held to the fire" in this "war on terrorism" by our alliances to the WRONG kind of governments. For instance, our support of Saudi Arabia, which is a country where if you say anything against the King, you will dissappear in the middle of the night. We're training their National Guard, which in their case is an elite force whose main purpose is to protect the King; we're also selling them military hardware, and generally being supportive to the King. Well, how do you think the PEOPLE, the citizens of Saudi Arabia, who are being oppressed and treated so undemocratically feel about America, the supposed land of justice for ALL, supporting the tyrants oppressing them? I can tell you, they are not too pleased with the American government. So, America is earning a nation of enemies, instead of a nation of respectful friends, as they would be if we did what America SHOULD so, and supported the PEOPLE. When we have a meeting with Chinese authorities, one of the first things we do is bring up how badly they're human rights record is. We should likewise, be that way with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emerites, and even Israel too. All of these countries are very oppressive to groups of their own citizens, but we "look the other way" either to continue to be in their preferred list of oil customers, or in the case of Israel, and this is the worst, just because if you are an American politician running for an office, and you don't support Israel, they brand you an anti-semitic and you lose. EVERY SINGLE politician, on both sides of the aisle, has in their list of things they support: Israel. Yet, Israel exists because they stole the land from millions of people who have been living in refugee capms for over 60 years. Our media, owned predominately by Jews, has blasted Americans with the bad news of each pathetic suicide bombing from a frustrated, unemployed, loser, BUT rarely mentions the daily bulldozing and thefts of non-jewish people's homes in order to give them to "Jewish Settlers". I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that America should NOT be supporting the religious oppression of anyone, which again is making us enemies, (remember 9/11), when we could be earning friends. We did the right thing in South Africa when apartheid was happening there. And when the PEOPLE took over, they thanked and still like America. When the PEOPLE / civilians someday take over their countries from their oppressors in the Middle Easst, they will NOT thank Americans for our decades of supporting their oppressors.

All this is because our politicians are selling us out in order for THEM to win THEIR next election! That is not a very healthy situation in a representative democracy, and you are absolutely correct, will eventually lead to our downfall. Europe sees this, and is smiling as the dollar crumbles vs. the Euro. They see America creating generations of "terrotists" by helping to oppress millions of people, then America spends trillions of dollars, and loses our own freedoms, in fighting these "terrorists" from the Middle East to New York.
I am very concerned.

Time shown that the us policy was right about the south asian situation.They did not respect treaties .and with every means fought against it.Even make films about it now.But on the long run the us won without arms becouse the life style is superior to the dictatorial punks that lead them.m.h

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by VietVet1stCavDoc:
The real question is, if you are in the military active, reserves or guard, would you, if martial law is declared, come into my home and take my weapons, if you are ordered to do so?

A brief study of American history would say that some of the present or future members of the United States military, if given orders which they believed to be legitimate from someone having authority over them, would do so.

For example, consider the members of the Colorado National Guard who machine-gunned a camp of mine workers and their wives and children (killing 45, 32 of them women and children) in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914 because their superiors ordered them to, after telling them that the mine workers and their families were dangerous radicals threatening the American way of life (because they were striking for higher wages and better working conditions?). (FYI: Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. All were acquitted.)

Consider the members of the U.S. Army (the 3rd Cavalry Regiment and the 12th Infantry Regiment) who attacked the "Bonus Army" camp in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 1932 during the Depression, following the orders of General Douglas MacArthur, Major George S. Patton and Major Dwight Eisenhower?

There were probably some who disobeyed orders (i.e. firing their machineguns into the air instead of aiming them at the strikers, for example) but there were enough who were "just following orders" to kill a lot of people.

And there would be enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines today who would "just follow orders" and break down your door and take your weapons, if their Sergeant or Petty Officer or their Lieutenant ordered them to do so.

If I was ordered to shoot Americans for expressing their views I would turn the gun on my leader and relive him of his command.....Either step down or fall down, your choice Sir

quote:

Originally posted by tmac1238:

quote:

...all the administration has to do is label that person as an "illegal combatant." That's scary, but I don't think it's scary to the point that we need to fear martial law suddenly being imposed. It is, however, scary enough where we have to reverse the policy and get back on course.

It is worse than you know. We should consider Murphy's Law "If anything can go wrong, it will!" And we should consider that this country never needed to revert back to Nazism even to handle a war as big as WWII. Why is this necessary for 19 hijackers? Why do you let a president who grossly failed to protect the homeland BECOME A DICTATOR IN THE NAME OF SECURITY? If you see someone who keeps putting rules after rules for security that you have seen before acted out in brutal regimes that were always enemies to America, why can't you figure out that the person who does this comes from those enemies or regimes?

And just how long was President Bush in office before 9/11? How long was his predicessor? Can we lay all the blame at failure to protect the nation all on the current President's feet?

[See this question?  How many of you do not realize that propagandists, politicians and respected people everywhere ARE REWARDING THIS PRESIDENT WITH DICTATOR POWERS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION PRECISELY FOR FAILING TO PROTECT THE NATION?  This one, partly guilty for doing this is asking if all the blame should be put on this president.  He makes no reference to the great rewards this president already received for performance quite opposite to every other president in American history.  No wonder there was controversy with even his first appointment to the presidency?]

Ah martial law, government aproved anarchy. Don't believe me? The land of the free being ruled with the fist of Castro. The second amendment is not for our hunting privileges, but for us to defend ourselves from the government. But too many people are "afraid" of guns or see them as "bad". Martial law becomes even more real with people who think like this. This country would fall into civil chaos and "we" would have to choose sides. "Sworn to defend" Do you defend the people being oppressed and fight the governmet you swore your allegience to; or do you fight along side the government and take away the freedoms you were sworn to fight for. Martial law would divide and destroy us and open us up to foreign attack. I hope this never happens and God help us if it does. Long live the land of the free and the home of those who are willing to fight.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
The last President to consider this option, according to witness General Alexander Haig, was President Richard Nixon. He discussed it with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and General Haig, his White House Chief of Staff.

His idea was to declare martial law and order the troops at Fort Myers to put the members of the Congress under "protective custody" to prevent them voting his impeachment over the Watergate cover-up. General Haig is supposed to have told the President, "Sir, the Army will not support you."

Nixon then, with Haig and Kissinger's assistance, wrote his resignation letter and submitted it the following day.

That night we were called in and all told right down to the lowest E1 that we could not take any orders directly from the president. We could only respond to orders that came through the SecDef.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by VietVet1stCavDoc:
The real question is, if you are in the military active, reserves or guard, would you, if martial law is declared, come into my home and take my weapons, if you are ordered to do so?

A brief study of American history would say that some of the present or future members of the United States military, if given orders which they believed to be legitimate from someone having authority over them, would do so.

For example, consider the members of the Colorado National Guard who machine-gunned a camp of mine workers and their wives and children (killing 45, 32 of them women and children) in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914 because their superiors ordered them to, after telling them that the mine workers and their families were dangerous radicals threatening the American way of life (because they were striking for higher wages and better working conditions?). (FYI: Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. All were acquitted.)

Consider the members of the U.S. Army (the 3rd Cavalry Regiment and the 12th Infantry Regiment) who attacked the "Bonus Army" camp in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 1932 during the Depression, following the orders of General Douglas MacArthur, Major George S. Patton and Major Dwight Eisenhower?

There were probably some who disobeyed orders (i.e. firing their machineguns into the air instead of aiming them at the strikers, for example) but there were enough who were "just following orders" to kill a lot of people.

And there would be enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines today who would "just follow orders" and break down your door and take your weapons, if their Sergeant or Petty Officer or their Lieutenant ordered them to do so.

Don't forget Kent State.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
The last President to consider this option, according to witness General Alexander Haig, was President Richard Nixon. He discussed it with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and General Haig, his White House Chief of Staff.

His idea was to declare martial law and order the troops at Fort Myers to put the members of the Congress under "protective custody" to prevent them voting his impeachment over the Watergate cover-up. General Haig is supposed to have told the President, "Sir, the Army will not support you."

Nixon then, with Haig and Kissinger's assistance, wrote his resignation letter and submitted it the following day.

RIIIIGHT!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RoberMorris:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
The last President to consider this option, according to witness General Alexander Haig, was President Richard Nixon. He discussed it with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and General Haig, his White House Chief of Staff.

His idea was to declare martial law and order the troops at Fort Myers to put the members of the Congress under "protective custody" to prevent them voting his impeachment over the Watergate cover-up. General Haig is supposed to have told the President, "Sir, the Army will not support you."

Nixon then, with Haig and Kissinger's assistance, wrote his resignation letter and submitted it the following day.

RIIIIGHT!!!!

I don't care much for Al Haig but to his credit it was he that had the message sent to every one reminding us that we could not take orders directly from the President. It was a scary night. But Nixon did the right thing and stepped down.

If faced with the same situation in the near future, I hope our military leaders remember it is the constitution that they must remain loyal to above all else.