U.S. to close..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Do you [and this question is for everyone else, too] think U.S. soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines/coast guardsmen would open fire on the people? And by "people", I mean not a small group of teenagers burning and looting a particular city. I mean mass dissatisfaction with the government. I'm genuinely interested to know as many people's opinions on this as possible.

This is a very serious, and excellent question. The truth is, historically speaking, most of the time they do. Most of the time the military follows the chain of command. It's what they've been trained to do, and it's the only way a standing army can function. If everyone questioned orders, no one (or very few) one would go to war.

I like to hope professional military members of so-called democratic states would think twice before attacking their own people. But it's laughably easy to find recent examples IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES where this has happened.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've heard that before. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But there's this, which kind of establishes the "one man, one vote" thing...

Now I'm curious - if not democracy, then what? Genuine mob rule. Or an autocrat.

No conflict between the concept of one-man, one-vote and the US constitutional republic. At least not legally or conceptually. Hard to control the shenanigans both sides routinely engage in when it comes to redistricting, voter suppression, and ballot fraud. As the saying goes I think (Gord will correct me ;-)) . . . democracy is the worst form of govt except for all the others. (Churchill maybe??)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a very serious, and excellent question. The truth is, historically speaking, most of the time they do. Most of the time the military follows the chain of command. It's what they've been trained to do, and it's the only way a standing army can function. If everyone questioned orders, no one (or very few) one would go to war.

I like to hope professional military members of so-called democratic states would think twice before attacking their own people. But it's laughably easy to find recent examples IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES where this has happened.

What do you mean "their own people"? Their countrymen in armed rebellion against their own legal government? Why would the military think twice about suppressing something like that? And why in the world would you hope for them to?

It is not a recipe for good government or a just society, that any minority group which is unable to affect change through the ballot box, can take up arms against the legal government and try to do it instead by force. Eliminating force from political processes is one of the fundamental goals of civilization. It's why we have armies and police.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

. . . COVID is a false flag attack to usher in the new world order. It was described perfectly in a Rockefeller foundation agenda (Lockstep). . . .

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ro...tion-lockstep/

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

.....
At least in principal, I think the USA would support all those rights for people in their home countries. So unless you just start making up rights out of thin air, your comment makes no sense.
...............

That was the point. My comment only makes sense if the 'rights' were made up (initially) out of thin air.

Nothing wrong with that of course. At one point in time they did not exist and then the USA founding fathers (and others) made them up, most agreed with them and there is a process in place to ensure they stay in place.

That is why they exist in the USA and not in all places. Some other places haven't made them up.

At the end of the day, the 'rights' that exist in the USA remain in place by the consent of it's citizens via the mechanisms of the various arms of governance that were put in place by the citizenry.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What do you mean "their own people"? Their countrymen in armed rebellion against their own legal government? Why would the military think twice about suppressing something like that? And why in the world would you hope for them to?

It is not a recipe for good government or a just society, that any minority group which is unable to affect change through the ballot box, can take up arms against the legal government and try to do it instead by force. Eliminating force from political processes is one of the fundamental goals of civilization. It's why we have armies and police.

HEY! We're back . I still haven't heard what happened to close the thread, but I'm glad to see it's back.


DH, I think you've misunderstood, or misread my comment. I was responding to the query posed as to whether I thought the US military would act against its own people.

Do you [and this question is for everyone else, too] think U.S. soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines/coast guardsmen would open fire on the people?

I purposely broadened the question to apply to all military and all nations, not just the US, because I don't think the US is exceptional in this case. My answer was simply to say it is quite common for the military to be used against the people of the nation they are supposed to defend. To think it unlikely is to be historically naive.

Now, whether this is a justifiable action depends on the circumstances, and likely where you sit. When I wrote my initial comment the thing I had in mind were the use of the military to attack and clear peaceful protesters so a certain president could hold a photo-op. But it could also apply to situations of armed militants attacking houses of government, or say voting offices.

I did not say I hoped they would do it. Quite the opposite. I hope any human would think carefully before carrying out an order to attack anyone -- especially the citizenry they are sworn to protect.

I hope a professional military member would do so, but I recognize that examples where the military is used (rightly or wrongly) against it's own citizens are all too easy to find. Even very recent examples.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Your chance of death from this virus WITHOUT a shot was already under 1%, how much lower do you need it?

I mean the men who fought for your freedoms has a wee bit higher of a chance of death, tossing the hard earned freedoms and liberties paid for in blood away because a sub 1%. chance of death freaks soft people out, that’s not a good look.

Here’s the thing,
if you get the virus: over 99% chance you’ll be fine, MAYBE you feel sick for a week or so
if you give up your freedoms and individual liberty: history has shown the only way to get it back is with a ton of violence, blood and death


Sacrificing their sacrifice




Because you’re afraid of this




Just imagine talking to a Normandy vet just back from the front line, or a vet from the independence war, about how you were you want to give away your, AND HIS rights, because you might catch a virus with over a 99% survival rate.

Those people you speak of stood in line in basic trading and got about a dozen shots, and no one asked them if they wanted them.
Now days or at least 20 years ago, you still got shots depending on where you were going or what unit you were in, and no one was asked if they wanted them.
I’ve been vaccinated against all kind of diseases I thought extinct, like Bubonic plague, even had the full anthrax series.

Now I am all for individual rights, but to not be vaccinated is stupid, even with only a 1% chance of death, which I think for a normal healthy individual it’s actually far less than 1%, all those old, fat, chain smokers really skew the odds.

It’s like the mask thing, I don’t think they do much good, and I hate the things, they make it difficult for me to breathe, which is odd as I’ve Scuba dove a lot of my life, worn O2 masks flying and sleep every night with a CPAP mask, it’s the recirculated hot air that I don’t like, but anyway they are so inexpensive and really don’t cause any big deal, there is just no valid reason not to wear one

[Jason Flare]

I forgot what I was going to say.

[a64pilot]

Any Military member with any longevity in the Service knows what Posse Comitatus is, and the few who don’t will certainly be educated by the old guys.
Yes I’m aware that in one instance it was broken, but I do not believe that in any real way any troops would fire on citizens, Kent State not withstanding, I believe that was the actions of a rare few and not representative of the rank and file Military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Those people you speak of stood in line in basic trading and got about a dozen shots, and no one asked them if they wanted them.
Now days or at least 20 years ago, you still got shots depending on where you were going or what unit you were in, and no one was asked if they wanted them.
I’ve been vaccinated against all kind of diseases I thought extinct, like Bubonic plague, even had the full anthrax series.

Now I am all for individual rights, but to not be vaccinated is stupid, even with only a 1% chance of death, which I think for a normal healthy individual it’s actually far less than 1%, all those old, fat, chain smokers really skew the odds.

It’s like the mask thing, I don’t think they do much good, and I hate the things, they make it difficult for me to breathe, which is odd as I’ve Scuba dove a lot of my life, worn O2 masks flying and sleep every night with a CPAP mask, it’s the recirculated hot air that I don’t like, but anyway they are so inexpensive and really don’t cause any big deal, there is just no valid reason not to wear one

If we are going down the dark road of freedom < safety™
What if I could prove that forcing your wife and daughter to wear a burka in public would reduce their chance of rape by a larger amount than wearing a fashion cotton mask from the 7-11 would prevent them from getting covid, or the common flu?

You’d be down with the government forcing them to wear burkas? I mean it’s for their safety and it’s not that big of a deal amiright?

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

If we are going down the dark road of freedom < safety™
What if I could prove that forcing your wife and daughter to wear a burka in public would reduce their chance of rape by a larger amount than wearing a fashion cotton mask from the 7-11 would prevent them from getting covid, or the common flu?

You’d be down with the government forcing them to wear burkas? I mean it’s for their safety and it’s not that big of a deal amiright?

This is probably why American politicians need to dumb down policies and talk in a more divisive manner than necessary.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

What if I could prove that forcing your wife and daughter to wear a burka in public would reduce their chance of rape by a larger amount than wearing a fashion cotton mask from the 7-11 would prevent them from getting covid, or the common flu?

Ah. Your confusion is made plain.

My mask doesn't protect ME. I wear a mask to protect YOU from ME. You're welcome.

Glad we could clear up this misunderstanding.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Yihang

This is probably why American politicians need to dumb down policies and talk in a more divisive manner than necessary.

Ahh the hubris of the self proclaimed “experts”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qhUTH8BLOs

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah. Your confusion is made plain.

My mask doesn't protect ME. I wear a mask to protect YOU from ME. You're welcome.

Glad we could clear up this misunderstanding.

That makes your forced mandate sound virtuous, it’s interesting watching big gov start to take on the role big religion used to have hundreds of years ago.

I think you might be the one mistaken friend, your “protection” was neither requested, nor wanted.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”. C. S. Lewis

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

HEY! We're back . I still haven't heard what happened to close the thread, but I'm glad to see it's back.


DH, I think you've misunderstood, or misread my comment. I was responding to the query posed as to whether I thought the US military would act against its own people.

I purposely broadened the question to apply to all military and all nations, not just the US, because I don't think the US is exceptional in this case. My answer was simply to say it is quite common for the military to be used against the people of the nation they are supposed to defend. To think it unlikely is to be historically naive.

Now, whether this is a justifiable action depends on the circumstances, and likely where you sit. When I wrote my initial comment the thing I had in mind were the use of the military to attack and clear peaceful protesters so a certain president could hold a photo-op. But it could also apply to situations of armed militants attacking houses of government, or say voting offices.

I did not say I hoped they would do it. Quite the opposite. I hope any human would think carefully before carrying out an order to attack anyone -- especially the citizenry they are sworn to protect.

I hope a professional military member would do so, but I recognize that examples where the military is used (rightly or wrongly) against it's own citizens are all too easy to find. Even very recent examples.

Maybe you had other recent examples in mind from countries other than the US, but most of the MSM reported that it was the US Park Police who cleared Lafayette Park, although there were reports of National Guard who were already there assisting. In fact, I think I read at the time that the orders came from AG Barr who has jurisdiction over most federal (civilian) law enforcement agencies but not the military obviously. The Park Police vehemently denied that tear gas was used although some accounts dispute this. The incident also followed days of violent rioting and looting (much of it recorded on video) that were coincident with legitimately peaceful protests, and so which category the protesters were comprised of is also disputed, as is whether they refused orders to disperse before the Park Police (and some National Guard) cleared the park.

As usual, the incident was highly politicized by partisans on both sides so we may never know the truth. When violent protesters (also video recorded) were attacking the federal courthouse in downtown Portland, Ore., it was also federal law enforcement and not the military who responded. This was appropriate since vandalism and attacks on federal properties are federal crimes. Even in the limited instances when US troops have been used along the Mexican border, they were often unarmed and under strict orders only to assist civilian authorities, and not make any arrests or apprehensions on their own. As has been pointed out, this is in compliance with a long-established federal statute known as Posse Comitas, although federal troops have been used a couple of times under the Insurrection Act, most notably to enforce school desegregation during the Jim Crow era.

Despite the tragic and embarrassing spectacle of the recent elections, the US has not become a Banana Republic or anything like other authoritarian regimes around the world which use its militaries to quell civil unrest. I know your post wasn't suggesting this Mike, but thought it best to clarify the example(s) you may have been relying on to illustrate your point.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

I think you might be the one mistaken friend, your “protection” was neither requested, nor wanted.

I get that YOU didn't request or want this. I know for a fact that many do.

That's why we've been ASKED to take that step, and why many private businesses have CHOSEN to restrict access only to those wearing masks, maintaining distance, and respecting each other, during this TEMPORARY but serious crisis.

Your local hospitals overloaded yet?

By the end of this, you will know at least one person who died from it, and several who caught it. People will die for your inalienable right to be a jerk about a simple, temporary public health measure.