Tommy Callahan Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: so you are saying that the military would abandon the chain of command in a civil war and not defend the nation from internal attack? where's the precedent for that in US history? the plantation owners and elites of the south lead its succession. the military on each side largely did what they were ordered. Has there ever been a mass mutiny amongst the US military? why would it happen now? because they are volunteers? you are assuming that military is not part of said attack... History of civil wars or strife shows military either gets in and takes power at the front, or waits and supports the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 32 minutes ago, LeviF said: The sheer amount of constitutional and historical illiteracy demonstrated above should be apparent to anyone with a high school education, but unfortunately the ideological capture of public institutions in this country means that said education basically taught three historical touchpoints and zero context for any of them. You can feel free to ignore anyone who uses the phrase “literal nazis,” insists that the founders didn’t mean what they said they meant, and pretends that America wasn’t at one time a high-functioning, high-trust society prior to 1964. 1964? because of the civil rights movement? I lived closer to 64 than you and despite growing up in a pretty idealized setting, I knew there were struggling, desperate Americans back then. There was also intolerance to non "mainstream" ideas (remember Joe McCarthy), rampant censorship, active hate movements, lower average education levels and literacy and global threats of annihilation (eg Cuban missile crisis). and there were homosexuals. The average standard of living was lower. Attacks on organized labor were common. There were actual wars in coal mining areas (eg matewan massacre). there were sweat shops and child laborers. but everything else was peaches and cream...for everyone. btw, would you agree with the term self proclaimed nazis? 21 minutes ago, Chris farley said: you are assuming that military is not part of said attack... History of civil wars or strife shows military either gets in and takes power at the front, or waits and supports the winner. again, where is anything close to a precedent in American history? Do you think the culture has changed so much that history is irrelevant? Could be but I wouldn't bet on it. Also consider that there are now many weapons that require only a few humans to control that could have a devastating effect. It's amazing that were at the point that we are even considering these scenarios but here we are... Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: so you are saying that the military would abandon the chain of command in a civil war and not defend the nation from internal attack? where's the precedent for that in US history? the plantation owners and elites of the south lead its succession. the military on each side largely did what they were ordered. Has there ever been a mass mutiny amongst the US military? why would it happen now? because they are volunteers? What I am saying is that the fact that it is an all volunteer force, and that eliminates the term "mutiny." The hypothetical would have to be more clearly defined, but in my view, the military would not survive intact if there was an internal conflict of any scope, especially if it was a regional situation. The 9/11 situation notwithstanding, where there was intent to take down hijacked airliners inside US borders, the concept of using the US military in a civil war scenario is simply unimaginable. The simple regional nature of National Guard units, much more important in the total defense capability than at any time prior, is alone an issue that makes this not thinkable. The US is suffering from very problematic recruitment and retention issues, especially in highly skilled areas, like pilots, and the buildup to such a scenario would be catastrophic to that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, sherpa said: What I am saying is that the fact that it is an all volunteer force, and that eliminates the term "mutiny." The hypothetical would have to be more clearly defined, but in my view, the military would not survive intact if there was an internal conflict of any scope, especially if it was a regional situation. The 9/11 situation notwithstanding, where there was intent to take down hijacked airliners inside US borders, the concept of using the US military in a civil war scenario is simply unimaginable. The simple regional nature of National Guard units, much more important in the total defense capability than at any time prior, is alone an issue that makes this not thinkable. The US is suffering from very problematic recruitment and retention issues, especially in highly skilled areas, like pilots, and the buildup to such a scenario would be catastrophic to that issue. therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command? If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way. I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not. oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century? I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened. as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some. edit: missing many. plenty to cite in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 38 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command? If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way. I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not. oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century? I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened. as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some. edit: missing many. plenty to cite in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I had a feeling this would be misunderstood after I posted it. My fault for not being more clear. Being an all volunteer force does not relieve one from following legal orders, and we're not in a bad way. My point is that being volunteer, you can resign from active duty, and that is what I believe would happen on a very large scale if there was some whiff of using active duty people in a shooting war inside the US. Such a mass resignation would take time, but the effect would be immediate. In addition, I believe their would have to be some changes that would have to be in place before such an order could be given, as one of the requirements of the UCMJ is to not obey an unlawful order. I believe the active duty military could not issue such an order. Using the National Guard for minor police augmentation is a different and legal issue. Regarding how small a minority is that thinks that way, the officer corps in the US military is every bid as diverse as the general population, so presumably the same differences that would lead up to this hypothetical would exist there and render it dysfunctional as a unified force. In my experience, despite what you may think, I cannot imagine a circumstance where US pilots would strike known civilians in the US. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, sherpa said: I had a feeling this would be misunderstood after I posted it. My fault for not being more clear. Being an all volunteer force does not relieve one from following legal orders, and we're not in a bad way. My point is that being volunteer, you can resign from active duty, and that is what I believe would happen on a very large scale if there was some whiff of using active duty people in a shooting war inside the US. Such a mass resignation would take time, but the effect would be immediate. In addition, I believe their would have to be some changes that would have to be in place before such an order could be given, as one of the requirements of the UCMJ is to not obey an unlawful order. I believe the active duty military could not issue such an order. Using the National Guard for minor police augmentation is a different and legal issue. Regarding how small a minority is that thinks that way, the officer corps in the US military is every bid as diverse as the general population, so presumably the same differences that would lead up to this hypothetical would exist there and render it dysfunctional as a unified force. In my experience, despite what you may think, I cannot imagine a circumstance where US pilots would strike known civilians in the US. ok. much more realistic scenario. Personally, I'd rather see the disloyal resign than stay and sabotage the resumption of law and order. Could the military function after such a purge? I don't know but many private companies function during months of strikes from workers. And there's always the option of mercenaries. Erik Prince would likely work for the highest bidder. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina as I recall. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackwater-down/ Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, redtail hawk said: 1964? because of the civil rights movement? I lived closer to 64 than you and despite growing up in a pretty idealized setting, I knew there were struggling, desperate Americans back then. There was also intolerance to non "mainstream" ideas (remember Joe McCarthy), rampant censorship, active hate movements, lower average education levels and literacy and global threats of annihilation (eg Cuban missile crisis). and there were homosexuals. The average standard of living was lower. Attacks on organized labor were common. There were actual wars in coal mining areas (eg matewan massacre). there were sweat shops and child laborers. but everything else was peaches and cream...for everyone. btw, would you agree with the term self proclaimed nazis? Nobody here claimed that everyone had a great life in America forever. Growing up in the area I did we still had people who were literally dirt poor out in the sticks. But to paraphrase a particular Nazarene, there will always be poor people. FLSA passed in 1938 I think so I'm not sure where there would have been child laborers when you were growing up. "There were homosexuals" lol ok and? Nobody denies the existence of homosexuality or the perpetual state of war that humanity seems to exist in. What exactly has everyone going to college gotten us? Prozac for half the country? At best, over-educated middle aged men talking politics on internet message boards? Joe McCarthy was correct. Communist ideologues captured the American institutions in ways that not even he could imagine at the time. As to the last part, why should I care about what national socialists think? Are there more of them now than there were in 1938? What threat do they pose? What power do they wield? We can acknowledge that nations have faults without demonizing the nation. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, it surged ahead of every recorded civilization ever in every meaningful metric in record time. But it worked for that time for a reason, reasons that we seem hell-bent on undoing in the last sixty years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: ok. much more realistic scenario. Personally, I'd rather see the disloyal resign than stay and sabotage the resumption of law and order. Could the military function after such a purge? I don't know but many private companies function during months of strikes from workers. And there's always the option of mercenaries. Erik Prince would likely work for the highest bidder. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina as I recall. If there was a disruption of the public order the vast majority of the population would rise up to crush the source of that disruption. People like to blow hot air, but in the end they want their coffee in the morning, their mail delivered on time and all the luxuries of modern life available 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, LeviF said: Nobody here claimed that everyone had a great life in America forever. Growing up in the area I did we still had people who were literally dirt poor out in the sticks. But to paraphrase a particular Nazarene, there will always be poor people. FLSA passed in 1938 I think so I'm not sure where there would have been child laborers when you were growing up. "There were homosexuals" lol ok and? Nobody denies the existence of homosexuality or the perpetual state of war that humanity seems to exist in. What exactly has everyone going to college gotten us? Prozac for half the country? At best, over-educated middle aged men talking politics on internet message boards? Joe McCarthy was correct. Communist ideologues captured the American institutions in ways that not even he could imagine at the time. As to the last part, why should I care about what national socialists think? Are there more of them now than there were in 1938? What threat do they pose? What power do they wield? We can acknowledge that nations have faults without demonizing the nation. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, it surged ahead of every recorded civilization ever in every meaningful metric in record time. But it worked for that time for a reason, reasons that we seem hell-bent on undoing in the last sixty years. you said before 1964. why 1964? yeah, prozac wasn't around. people were popping valium like m&m's. the nazi comment was in reference to your disparagement of the literal nazis statement. are you walking that back? I'm no communist by a long stretch but freedom of speech applies to them as well as MAGA's that want to dissolve the union.. oh, and younger than middle aged folks spend significant time on the site as well. I don't believe one can have too much education. Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Just now, redtail hawk said: you said before 1964. why 1964? yeah, prozac wasn't around. people were popping valium like m&m's. the nazi comment was in reference to your disparagement of the literal nazis statement. are you walking that back? I'm no communist by a long stretch but freedom of speech applies to them as well as MAGA's that want to dissolve the union.. oh, and younger than middle aged folks spend significant time on the site as well. If you're over 35, you're middle aged 😂 Walking what back? If someone says "literal nazis" in political talk they aren't a rational human being, they're a screeching loser. We just had the discussion yesterday about how much better cities were at the turn of the 20th century. Didn't see any pushback from you there. What do you think happened between 1900 and 1955 that made life so terrible for pretty much everyone in America? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 minute ago, LeviF said: If you're over 35, you're middle aged 😂 Walking what back? If someone says "literal nazis" in political talk they aren't a rational human being, they're a screeching loser. We just had the discussion yesterday about how much better cities were at the turn of the 20th century. Didn't see any pushback from you there. What do you think happened between 1900 and 1955 that made life so terrible for pretty much everyone in America? yet you seem to accept the term self described nazis. explain the distinction. And why 1964. Does that have anything to do with the civil rights act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 minute ago, redtail hawk said: yet you seem to accept the term self described nazis. explain the distinction. And why 1964. Does that have anything to do with the civil rights act? And I also rejected any talk of nazis at all. There's no reason for it. I don't care what nazis think. My assertion was neither should anyone else. JFK assassination is when the worm turned. I say 1964 because 1964 ushered in the real third age of American presidents, as LBJ started throwing his weight around. The farcical Warren Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Hart-Celler, assassination of Malcolm X, Vietnam. These are the defining moments for the era from LBJ through 9/11. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, LeviF said: And I also rejected any talk of nazis at all. There's no reason for it. I don't care what nazis think. My assertion was neither should anyone else. JFK assassination is when the worm turned. I say 1964 because 1964 ushered in the real third age of American presidents, as LBJ started throwing his weight around. The farcical Warren Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Hart-Celler, assassination of Malcolm X, Vietnam. These are the defining moments for the era from LBJ through 9/11. i care what nazis do. In Charlottesville for example. Was that ok with you?: We'll have to disagree on the importance of the civil rights act and the genesis of Medicare and Social Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 minute ago, redtail hawk said: i care what nazis do. In Charlottesville for example. Was that ok with you?: We'll have to disagree on the importance of the civil rights act and the genesis of Medicare and Social Security. Tell you what, I'll talk with you about Charlottesville when you acknowledge that every murder committed by an individual who should already be in prison is an example of far-left domestic terrorism. Starting with the Michigan State shooter. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I watched some of her interview on Hannity. Note, that I’ve already called her a clown. But…what she’s talking about is ‘divorcing’ the states from the federal government, not from one another. While in-artful in her presentation, as is usual, she’s expressing concern from her constituents over the ever expanding over arching authority of the centralized DC power base. Now THAT is a discussion worth having. Or…you guys can keep screaming at each other about muskets and fighter jets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 2 hours ago, redtail hawk said: therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command? If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way. I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not. oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century? I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened. as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some. edit: missing many. plenty to cite in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations they were also used to move and build the camps for Japanese Americans in the WW2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, LeviF said: Tell you what, I'll talk with you about Charlottesville when you acknowledge that every murder committed by an individual who should already be in prison is an example of far-left domestic terrorism. Starting with the Michigan State shooter. yes, because it's impossible to discuss them separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: yes, because it's impossible to discuss them separately. It's entirely possible to do so. The problem is that you want to imagine there is some kind of large, ongoing, national socialist conspiracy that is helping to inform policy decisions when in fact this does not exist. Deliberately or not, you want to insert imaginary enemies into a discussion about American life in the 20th and 21st centuries in order to assert that life is better now than it ever has been but for those dang nazis that are just messing it all up. It's dishonest. It's absurd on its face. It's an attempt to shout down any notion that suggests that hey, maybe the direction this country is going in isn't the best thing for her people. If you want the GOP to be the party of nazis, then fine, I reserve the right to say the DNC is the party of Bolsheviks. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: I watched some of her interview on Hannity. Note, that I’ve already called her a clown. But…what she’s talking about is ‘divorcing’ the states from the federal government, not from one another. While in-artful in her presentation, as is usual, she’s expressing concern from her constituents over the ever expanding over arching authority of the centralized DC power base. Now THAT is a discussion worth having. Or…you guys can keep screaming at each other about muskets and fighter jets. Do you think this clown is capable of nuance??? Not buying this spin, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 4 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: Do you think this clown is capable of nuance??? Not buying this spin, no offense. Gene, I watched her actually speak. Unlike many on here who prefer to get their information from second hand nitwits on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts