A friend that I was in the 82d with moved on to 18D and came to visit from Ft. Bragg this week. We were discussing the Bundy Ranch situation. He went on to say that he wishes his team was sent there to squash the whole thing. He said he would have loved to beat some of those hippies' asses and, "They could have screamed about their rights as I was stomping their heads." I was disappointed and began to ask myself, why doesn't the Army include classes on the Constitution? We swore to defend it so why don't they educate those new soldiers as to what they are defending. My friend is not really all that smart and is not educated outside of military medical training so he has no idea what it in that document. If a SF soldier has that mentality, how many infantrymen have the same?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Interesting conversation with an 18D yesterday.
- Thread starter Ryguy
- Start date
We both live in Nevada. I don't think many people outside had the same coverage as we did. Many people still think the issue was some rancher trespassing with his cattle.
Yes, kind of scary/sad that a member of our armed forces would get a kick out attacking U.S. Citizens within the borders of the USA.
Yes, kind of scary/sad that a member of our armed forces would get a kick out attacking U.S. Citizens within the borders of the USA.
I've had the "what if" conversations with a couple my friends in the Corps too concerning situations like the Katrina aftermath etc... I am scared to say that unfortunately there are plenty of service members who are completely ignorant to the Constitution or the Amendments.
It offers a great opportunity to give an impromtu lesson on what they swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
It offers a great opportunity to give an impromtu lesson on what they swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
Lets not advocate any bloodshed quite yet shall we?
In a purely hypothetical situation though, how would these folks feel, knowing they went in and smoked a few of these poor bastards, all the while knowing for a fact that the survivors of said situation live just a few minutes walking distance down the road from their loved ones and better halves....?
In a purely hypothetical situation though, how would these folks feel, knowing they went in and smoked a few of these poor bastards, all the while knowing for a fact that the survivors of said situation live just a few minutes walking distance down the road from their loved ones and better halves....?
Never forget one thing....every tyrant in human history that enslaved and murdered mankind was only able to do so because there is never a shortage of small minded men who are "just doing their job." Without the "just doing my job" crowd every mass murdering dictator in the world would be just another psycho.
If you think we are different you will be unpleasantly surprised.
If you think we are different you will be unpleasantly surprised.
This is the Stanford prison experiment dynamic and it scares me. This is what led to the Kent State shootings, the rise of the Nazi party, and a ton of other nasty events in human history. You can educate people all you want on the Constitution but it will do no good.
All it takes is one inexperienced and ambitious "authority" type, who wants to do his job and do it well, going completely go black and white thought process and anybody not wearing a uniform or conforming to "party" ideals becomes sub-human.
All it takes is one inexperienced and ambitious "authority" type, who wants to do his job and do it well, going completely go black and white thought process and anybody not wearing a uniform or conforming to "party" ideals becomes sub-human.
What do all of them have in common? They were perpetrated against people who were, by and large, unarmed.
Not saying that what you describe can't happen here. It's just that I think the results will likely be different, and with the oppressor paying a MUCH higher price.
More service members are like this 18D than aren't. I was one of them once. Knowledge is king here.
Last edited:
I think that it is all how it is portrayed to the combat troops. I agree with you in your doubt many would want to just shoot american citizens. But if spun a different way.... (i.e. Nazi's, Russians, etc...). It has happened before in other parts of the world, and I do not see this current generation doing a lot of researching what we were founded on.
True, can't argue that. I think a lot of it comes down to what unit it is. In one unit, which also happened to be the best group of guys I served with, we were all southern rednecks. I have no doubt they would make the right decision, because we declined orders to do something we disagreed with. I don't mean this to be disrespectful in any way, and it will piss some people off, but it is SOME of the guard guys I fear would just follow orders. I am basing this off encounters with the ones local to me. I do not feel it is like this with all guardsmen. On to the point...the ones here seem to want to prove themselves as high speed as (insert whatever popular super high speed unit here).
There's a whirlwind and it would do good to keep from reaping it just for the sake of some action or an adrenaline dump.
I can say with absolute certainty he is an 18D. Back to the question, what is the reasoning for the Army not covering at least the Bill of Rights? There is certainly time for it to be included in at least one of the classroom sessions. The average IQ for enlisted soldiers from 1998-2004 was 105, while officers have shown 113 for the Army, 121 for the Navy. Anyway, they are certainly smart enough to understand a more than basic instructional on the Bill of Rights. So, give me some reasoning as to why it is not included.
It is spooky just how many lower enlisted know nothing of their responsibility to the Constitution they swore to defend, and how many senior non-commissioned and commissioned there are out there looking to advance themselves at any cost.
The cost would be high for sure, but the military would ultimately end up subduing the citizen population. I hope we never get to that point.
The cost would be high for sure, but the military would ultimately end up subduing the citizen population. I hope we never get to that point.
I think that we are definitely on the same sheet of music. It is also really good to hear that there are top tier units out there that are chalked full of patriots who think. My personal experiences and work environments may differ a little from yours, but I am also happy to say that I have come across many patriots too. The ones that scare me are the young ones who have had the "instant willingness and obedience to orders" beat into their heads. They are not bad kids, they just don't know.
My wife is a former Army doctor, I actually met her doing security for her in Haiti about 4 years ago. She pointed it out best when she said that my "little boys" are perfect at following whatever orders are given to them.
This is where I believe that it becomes a leadership responsibility to teach young service members to know what they are defending and what is in the oath that they swore. Fortunately, being at my current spot I am around a lot of senior leadership. There are a lot of smart patriots here.
Thanks for the constructive conversation.
I don't know if all the senior non-commissioned that would do this would be doing it for advancement. I have had this type of conversation with a couple of co-workers that I would consider fine Americans and good friends. They have led Marines in combat and have done a great job. This type of hypothetical situation is just never explored, therefore it is new and uncharted territory for them. Surprise! You do not have to be overly smart to 1) get in, and 2) advance in rank in a lot of jobs. Hard work, dedication, and esprit de Corps all play a big part in promotions still.
Unfortunately, even with people like this, there is still an existence of ignorance on occasion. That is why I rarely miss a chance to talk about it now.
knowledge, understanding and appreciation for the constitution must start long before you raise your hand to swear an oath to something you know nothing of. its not the repsonsibiltiy of the military or government to teach our young elisted ot officers. its their job to reinforce what they should already know.
that education must start at home with YOU as a parent then be continued on at school. we know we're screwed on the school part these days so whom does the responsibility lie with?
i teach my oldest daughter about the constitution along with all the other important rights, freedoms, laws that our wonderful socialist common core school system feels the need ot omit or rewrite. its MY responsibility to put forth a young person that understands how we got where we are as a nation and why. blind allegiance is foolish.
that education must start at home with YOU as a parent then be continued on at school. we know we're screwed on the school part these days so whom does the responsibility lie with?
i teach my oldest daughter about the constitution along with all the other important rights, freedoms, laws that our wonderful socialist common core school system feels the need ot omit or rewrite. its MY responsibility to put forth a young person that understands how we got where we are as a nation and why. blind allegiance is foolish.
Last edited:
Second (third?) that, right bang on.
I wish I possessed the eloquence and presence of mind to formulate as effective a statement about how small segments of a population can hijack an entire society's resources and momentum, and how minority extremists do so much damage in our world. I personally believe that PC is the extremist's passive aggressive means of shutting down debate, forestalling constructive dialogue about their extremist agenda. It is at the very core of the movement in this Nation to convert us into a Third World entity, all ostensibly for our own good. I throw the BS flag an that and wonder who gets the biggest good from such policies; us, or the sideliners whose agenda is being advanced by their activist mouthpieces. Who, for instance, inside and outside, gains from the disarmament of the American populace, eh?
These days I think I may know why Putin smiles so much when Washington talks like the Big Bad Wolf.
For example, who is running astronaut transportation up to the "International" Space Station we Americans have sunk so much treasure into? Helluva way to win a space race, I say...
Greg
Last edited:
Here is the answer to you question...read this essay and understand the culture of the upper echelon of military leadership, which I witnessed first hand.
_It Don't Make Sense_: When to Shoot the Colonels by Tom Baugh
Back to the OP. When I was active duty in the 70-80s, there was no instruction on the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. As previously posted, that knowledge should be a foundation of your personality that drew you to serving in the first place.
Why don't they teach this? Personally, I don't think the government wants it's people (including GIs) to think for themselves. If they did think for themselves, they would ask questions like: "why haven't we won a war since 1945?" "What are we dong in Iraq for 12 yrs.?" The government just wants to be able to point the military at something w/o questions.
As to other questions raised in this thread, read "On Killing", by LTC. Dave Grossman. Should be required reading for all combat officers.
Why don't they teach this? Personally, I don't think the government wants it's people (including GIs) to think for themselves. If they did think for themselves, they would ask questions like: "why haven't we won a war since 1945?" "What are we dong in Iraq for 12 yrs.?" The government just wants to be able to point the military at something w/o questions.
As to other questions raised in this thread, read "On Killing", by LTC. Dave Grossman. Should be required reading for all combat officers.
KYpatriot. Great article.
As to killing Americans, shall we look to Waco, Texas. Yes, this was conducted by Federal LEOs. But the guys that conducted that raid were lied to; they were part of a group, and they never relented until ALL witnesses were killed. The military (Ft. Hood) was involved, they were lied to. We have laws protecting citizens from the military, but none in our government was ever charged with the deaths of all those women and children they were supposedly there to protect.
Katrina has been already mentioned.
The Bill of Rights is to protect us from our own government. Why would they want to educate their employees of these protections?
As to killing Americans, shall we look to Waco, Texas. Yes, this was conducted by Federal LEOs. But the guys that conducted that raid were lied to; they were part of a group, and they never relented until ALL witnesses were killed. The military (Ft. Hood) was involved, they were lied to. We have laws protecting citizens from the military, but none in our government was ever charged with the deaths of all those women and children they were supposedly there to protect.
Katrina has been already mentioned.
The Bill of Rights is to protect us from our own government. Why would they want to educate their employees of these protections?
MtnCreek.
True. In a military school program there can be classes on the Constitution. When I was in college ROTC, I'm sure that I had some of those classes. But I'm talking about active duty training. Most grunts have not had ROTC or military schooling prior to active duty, and they don't get it after they raise their right hand.
True. In a military school program there can be classes on the Constitution. When I was in college ROTC, I'm sure that I had some of those classes. But I'm talking about active duty training. Most grunts have not had ROTC or military schooling prior to active duty, and they don't get it after they raise their right hand.
I will say this, IF your friend was able to pass the 18D course, it is safe to say that he is indeed educated or I should say possess the ability to function at a higher than average level. One simply doesn't pass the 18D course if they lacked intellectual apptitude to do so. Furthermore, to make it that far he had to have a GT score of 110 or above even to attend selection. A 110 GT score is an above average score in the military as a whole and very few MOS's require you to have one that high to be considered for a MOS/Job.
So, I doubt your friends position has anything to do with his education and or his intelligence apptidue or lack there of. If your friend expressed those sentiments it is a reflection of how he as an individual feels about that situation and is reflective on him and him alone. You will be hard pressed to find a SF soldier that isn't aware of the bigger picture. Granted there are always exceptions, but as a rule, the average SF guy is more familiar with things like Posse Comitatus and other laws that the average Infantry soldier has never heard of. My guess is your friend is either a new guy in Group and or there might have been adult beverages being consumed when this conversation took place. If he is an older guy and has been around awhile then it is definately an individual statement as to his opinion on the subject and not indicative of how all SF guys think.
It was mentioned already but I also have to ask if you are 100% sure he is an 18D becasue what you say transpired sounds more like something I'd expect to hear out of someone who was not SF.
Sorry what follows is talking out my ass stuff....
I always thought a TEAM would have a guy on board that was sort of a political cadre to teach foreign fighters the value of the individual and self determination with a representative govt. Shame if he has to start by bringing boots in the group up to speed. Something doesnt sound right.
Wish TV had never got rid of Schoolhouse Rock so that kids would get the govt basics passively while watching cartoons. Probably be replaced soon by "Manifesto" morning shows.
I always thought a TEAM would have a guy on board that was sort of a political cadre to teach foreign fighters the value of the individual and self determination with a representative govt. Shame if he has to start by bringing boots in the group up to speed. Something doesnt sound right.
Wish TV had never got rid of Schoolhouse Rock so that kids would get the govt basics passively while watching cartoons. Probably be replaced soon by "Manifesto" morning shows.
Last edited:
Ya, no, I don't think so.
The only reason The Troubles are over in Northern Ireland is because its citizens decided they were over. Neither the British Army nor the Royal Ulster Constabulary ever came close to subduing any population.
It will be ten times worse for the would be oppressors here.
I am an alumni of the United States Naval Academy. I don't recall ANY discussion pro or con on the subject of opening fire upon your own countrymen. It's been a while (26 years) but I haven't forgotten much of what happened and what I did during those four years.
Exactly. I would like to agree with proneshooter but I have no idea. I would think the only way the citizens would have a chance with an overreaching power like that would be if all of the military said no I am not going to do that. Thats the only way. I mean guerrilla tactics work but I am afraid no matter what anyone has in this country regular citizens would never stand a chance if the military turned on them. No way no how. But, like everyone else said, lets hope we never have to find that out. Things would no doubt get ugly very fast.
No guerrilla force ever won by going toe to toe with conventional military forces.
It's one thing when an oppressive military/police force does so far away from their homes. Their loved ones are safe. But what happens when your enemy has easy access to your loved ones?
For an insurgency, simply continuing to breathe free air is a victory. It is their continued presence, rather more than their accomplishment, that drives both hope and faith among the oppressed population. It is the continuing proclamations of progress and victory by the oppressors that eventually creates the crisis of credibility which unseats those oppressors.
To some degree that stage has already been reached on our own soil, where litigation has (hopefully) stood in for more offensive resistance. I stand proud to be a New Yorker, where such litigation in opposition may end up leading the way to resolution, regardless of whether or not it succeeds in it's actual limited scope.
Truly, I believe, it will be either the acceptance or rejection of these lawsuits by the supreme Court that will either trigger or abate a future where actual offensive resistance becomes possible and likely.
The packing the Court may actually become the act which eventually brings down the Grabbers. Once the Court becomes unquestionably politicized, it becomes an obvious fact that the people and the entire government are at irreconcilable odds.
Once they are down, this Nation will understand how they were stooged and gulled into supporting them. I think it will become a pivotal lesson about how a government's fallibility is both a fact and a mandate against PC and Social Engineering. In this realization lies the seeds of recovery.
My only real question is how can this current deliberate policy of oppression have managed to survive this far, to this extreme?
In this Nation, when the pendulum of change swings so far beyond the norm, the reaction has been historically destructive. I refer to matters like the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, and other more well repressed historical lessons (Battle of Athens?).
Greg
To some degree that stage has already been reached on our own soil, where litigation has (hopefully) stood in for more offensive resistance. I stand proud to be a New Yorker, where such litigation in opposition may end up leading the way to resolution, regardless of whether or not it succeeds in it's actual limited scope.
Truly, I believe, it will be either the acceptance or rejection of these lawsuits by the supreme Court that will either trigger or abate a future where actual offensive resistance becomes possible and likely.
The packing the Court may actually become the act which eventually brings down the Grabbers. Once the Court becomes unquestionably politicized, it becomes an obvious fact that the people and the entire government are at irreconcilable odds.
Once they are down, this Nation will understand how they were stooged and gulled into supporting them. I think it will become a pivotal lesson about how a government's fallibility is both a fact and a mandate against PC and Social Engineering. In this realization lies the seeds of recovery.
My only real question is how can this current deliberate policy of oppression have managed to survive this far, to this extreme?
In this Nation, when the pendulum of change swings so far beyond the norm, the reaction has been historically destructive. I refer to matters like the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, and other more well repressed historical lessons (Battle of Athens?).
Greg
Last edited:
Both proneshooter and Greg are right. Most people don't understand the boots on the ground mechanics of an insurgency, and we havent had a military that has understood it since Washington and the Continental Army. There is zero chance that the entire US military, even if it were of one accord in trying to do so, could suppress an American insurgency. Zero. They could inflinct massive damage no doubt, but could not possibly put it down. Lets brainstorm a little bit as an exercise, not because I believe it is necessarily going to come to that, because the military would NOT be of one accord at all. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume it were for a moment.
We have an excellent lesson in the last ten years in Iraq. Iraq has shown that our military can and will sweep organized forces from the field of battle with authority. The initial push to defeat the regulars in Iraq was over in days. But clearly, despite the overwhelming and complete failure of the Iraqi forces to mount any kind of credible defense against the advance of US forces, those initial battles meant little in the long term. The real battle for Iraq that determined our failure there was the insurgency that followed. Our first and ultimately fatal strategic mistake, unbelievable as it may seem, was that our leadership couldn't even imagine that such an insurgency would happen or could ever be as effective as it was. THAT is what should concern us right now, for even after Iraq the libtards and idiot neocon hawks STILL don't understand how difficult insurgencies are to defeat. In their ignorance they seem perfectly comfortable assuming that no American would ever lift a hand against the US government regardless of what it was doing because to do so would be "futile" given the firepower that exists. Their blind overconfidence and arrogance resulting from their gross overestimation of the ability of the US government to forcefully bend the American people to their will makes it more likely they would try those methods. When one side feels supremely confident in their ability to get their way through force, then force is much more likely to be used. Mutual respect of each's sides ability to use force can prevent open conflict.
Some of you may believe, as so many in power do, that I am wrong and that the military can mop up anything. Again, your conclusions are faulty because you fail to comprehend the reality of Iraq, and lack imagination to apply those lessons in a hypothetical insurgency here. The failure of the US military to accomplish our stated goals in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of firepower, intelligence, fortitude, technical competence, or any other measure of excellence that exists. Our military was, and still is, the finest fighting force ever to take the field of battle. It was my honor to provide close air support for these men and I know what they are capable of. The fact that Iraq is worse now than when we started is because our military was built from the ground up, trained, and structured around defeating regular state-controlled armies on the field of battle, not insurgencies. They are different problems requiring different tools. It is foolish to blame a screwdriver because it makes a poor prybar - that is not what it was designed to do. You can use it as such but the results may vary.
I wont get into how you defeat an insurgency, because that is for another thread, but suffice it to say we aren't good at it and still aren't. The best way to win is to not play, and that is what a good patriot must focus on here. We are far from insurgency in the US but those patriots who see warning signs on the horizon are right to sound the alarm because no one but madmen want that kind of violence here. We had it once, it would be far, far worse now. The civil war cannot even properly be called an insurgency as it was mostly fought with the same rules as conventional warfare, and yet look at the toll. A real insurgency would have been much worse and lasted generations. It is important for policy makers to understand it would be far worse than they are imagining. Again, Iraq is instructive. We put on a full court press for ten years in Iraq. We had plenty of money to do so and generally got the funding we needed, unlike George Washington's experience. Our lines of communication were absolute. Our lines of supply over the sea were completely unchallenged, and the land routes were not challenged in any way that really affected our military ability since 99+% of our men and materials moved where we wanted them, and if they didnt it was bureacracy not enemy action that denied us. Most importantly, our soft underbelly, ie our own homes and families and property, were completely immune and protected, allowing us to affect whatever strategy we wanted without any serious fear of reprisal on the things we care about whatsoever. Now the insurgents: they started with poor infrastructure for the basic necessities of life and we quickly made them worse. They were subject to attack from the air or long range artillery at any time. No supply lines were secure and serious shortages even of clean water abound. Basic weapons only. Mostly open terrain meant the only place to hide was in the cities with their own families, since the desert maximizes our aerial observation and night vision advantages. They had no advantage in any category of strategic or tactical merit save one, and in the end its the only one that matters in an insurgency: they were pissed and took it personally and therefore wouldn't quit no matter the cost. Americans also know how to take things personally.
Now I ask you doubters, how does the situation differ here? Iraq is California sized roughly in land and population, and presents much smaller since so much of it is featureless uninhabitable desert. Think about the extreme difficulty in fighting the same ten year war we just fought if Iraq, instead of being in the middle east, was more like Virginia or Kentucky? Where you often cant see ten feet off the road and nothing much from the air? Where you are being supplied literally from the same area you are fighting in so everything must be protected or lost? Where our own homes as are subject to loss as the insurgents are? Where the potential insurgents are indistinguishable from our own soldiers and indeed are among them? Where every use of firepower destroys our own infrastructure and economy as much as it does theirs, and is only a recruiting tool for them? No place for respite, no where to rotate out, no finishing a tour, just constant low level threat at all times and all places and no one is safe anywhere even our own families?
It is a situation too terrible to contemplate, but we must if we want to avoid it. We never want our government to get even an inkling of an idea that they are capable of subduing the American people, because we never want them to get it in their heads that it is even an option. The fact that they would lose is not even the point, because if we ever have to prove the point we will all lose, and lose big. Also, never forget that if it ever came to that for us, God forbid, that the rest of the world will not politely stand by and let us settle our internal argument without taking advantage.
The fact is our government must yield to the people, and not the other way around, or bad things are coming our way. Its as if they are playing a poker game with our money and think they have a strong hand when in fact they are bluffing and dont even know it. Its a dangerous game they play, with our children's futures in the pot. The best way to convince them not to consider playing is to explain the fact that they could not possibly win. They don't understand that right now.
We have an excellent lesson in the last ten years in Iraq. Iraq has shown that our military can and will sweep organized forces from the field of battle with authority. The initial push to defeat the regulars in Iraq was over in days. But clearly, despite the overwhelming and complete failure of the Iraqi forces to mount any kind of credible defense against the advance of US forces, those initial battles meant little in the long term. The real battle for Iraq that determined our failure there was the insurgency that followed. Our first and ultimately fatal strategic mistake, unbelievable as it may seem, was that our leadership couldn't even imagine that such an insurgency would happen or could ever be as effective as it was. THAT is what should concern us right now, for even after Iraq the libtards and idiot neocon hawks STILL don't understand how difficult insurgencies are to defeat. In their ignorance they seem perfectly comfortable assuming that no American would ever lift a hand against the US government regardless of what it was doing because to do so would be "futile" given the firepower that exists. Their blind overconfidence and arrogance resulting from their gross overestimation of the ability of the US government to forcefully bend the American people to their will makes it more likely they would try those methods. When one side feels supremely confident in their ability to get their way through force, then force is much more likely to be used. Mutual respect of each's sides ability to use force can prevent open conflict.
Some of you may believe, as so many in power do, that I am wrong and that the military can mop up anything. Again, your conclusions are faulty because you fail to comprehend the reality of Iraq, and lack imagination to apply those lessons in a hypothetical insurgency here. The failure of the US military to accomplish our stated goals in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of firepower, intelligence, fortitude, technical competence, or any other measure of excellence that exists. Our military was, and still is, the finest fighting force ever to take the field of battle. It was my honor to provide close air support for these men and I know what they are capable of. The fact that Iraq is worse now than when we started is because our military was built from the ground up, trained, and structured around defeating regular state-controlled armies on the field of battle, not insurgencies. They are different problems requiring different tools. It is foolish to blame a screwdriver because it makes a poor prybar - that is not what it was designed to do. You can use it as such but the results may vary.
I wont get into how you defeat an insurgency, because that is for another thread, but suffice it to say we aren't good at it and still aren't. The best way to win is to not play, and that is what a good patriot must focus on here. We are far from insurgency in the US but those patriots who see warning signs on the horizon are right to sound the alarm because no one but madmen want that kind of violence here. We had it once, it would be far, far worse now. The civil war cannot even properly be called an insurgency as it was mostly fought with the same rules as conventional warfare, and yet look at the toll. A real insurgency would have been much worse and lasted generations. It is important for policy makers to understand it would be far worse than they are imagining. Again, Iraq is instructive. We put on a full court press for ten years in Iraq. We had plenty of money to do so and generally got the funding we needed, unlike George Washington's experience. Our lines of communication were absolute. Our lines of supply over the sea were completely unchallenged, and the land routes were not challenged in any way that really affected our military ability since 99+% of our men and materials moved where we wanted them, and if they didnt it was bureacracy not enemy action that denied us. Most importantly, our soft underbelly, ie our own homes and families and property, were completely immune and protected, allowing us to affect whatever strategy we wanted without any serious fear of reprisal on the things we care about whatsoever. Now the insurgents: they started with poor infrastructure for the basic necessities of life and we quickly made them worse. They were subject to attack from the air or long range artillery at any time. No supply lines were secure and serious shortages even of clean water abound. Basic weapons only. Mostly open terrain meant the only place to hide was in the cities with their own families, since the desert maximizes our aerial observation and night vision advantages. They had no advantage in any category of strategic or tactical merit save one, and in the end its the only one that matters in an insurgency: they were pissed and took it personally and therefore wouldn't quit no matter the cost. Americans also know how to take things personally.
Now I ask you doubters, how does the situation differ here? Iraq is California sized roughly in land and population, and presents much smaller since so much of it is featureless uninhabitable desert. Think about the extreme difficulty in fighting the same ten year war we just fought if Iraq, instead of being in the middle east, was more like Virginia or Kentucky? Where you often cant see ten feet off the road and nothing much from the air? Where you are being supplied literally from the same area you are fighting in so everything must be protected or lost? Where our own homes as are subject to loss as the insurgents are? Where the potential insurgents are indistinguishable from our own soldiers and indeed are among them? Where every use of firepower destroys our own infrastructure and economy as much as it does theirs, and is only a recruiting tool for them? No place for respite, no where to rotate out, no finishing a tour, just constant low level threat at all times and all places and no one is safe anywhere even our own families?
It is a situation too terrible to contemplate, but we must if we want to avoid it. We never want our government to get even an inkling of an idea that they are capable of subduing the American people, because we never want them to get it in their heads that it is even an option. The fact that they would lose is not even the point, because if we ever have to prove the point we will all lose, and lose big. Also, never forget that if it ever came to that for us, God forbid, that the rest of the world will not politely stand by and let us settle our internal argument without taking advantage.
The fact is our government must yield to the people, and not the other way around, or bad things are coming our way. Its as if they are playing a poker game with our money and think they have a strong hand when in fact they are bluffing and dont even know it. Its a dangerous game they play, with our children's futures in the pot. The best way to convince them not to consider playing is to explain the fact that they could not possibly win. They don't understand that right now.
Only the insurgency itself can defeat an insurgency; by losing the support of those within whom it harbors. It achieves this by means of perpetrating atrocities, losing its will or way, by engaging the government where the government is strong and the insurgency is weak. It loses its way by losing sight of its goals and values; mission creep, if you will.
The government wins by disinformation, false flag atrocities, and false negotiations. It can come as no surprise that a government that cloaks itself in hypocrisy will never shy away from hypocrisy when dealing with either the insurgents or the populace which harbors them.
Hypocrites are further flawed because they believe their own spew. They cannot read the writing on the wall because their own hypocrisy obscures it on the intervening veil of their own hypocrisy.
This is what makes them doubly dangerous; they cannot see reason, not even their own. Such lessons can only be taught them at the length of an individual's grasp. At such ends, the cost is doubly painful. Because of this the patriot will only rise to such an occasion once all other options have failed. The patriot loses the option by failing to recognize and understand when that stage is imminent.
Wake up, people!
Greg
The government wins by disinformation, false flag atrocities, and false negotiations. It can come as no surprise that a government that cloaks itself in hypocrisy will never shy away from hypocrisy when dealing with either the insurgents or the populace which harbors them.
Hypocrites are further flawed because they believe their own spew. They cannot read the writing on the wall because their own hypocrisy obscures it on the intervening veil of their own hypocrisy.
This is what makes them doubly dangerous; they cannot see reason, not even their own. Such lessons can only be taught them at the length of an individual's grasp. At such ends, the cost is doubly painful. Because of this the patriot will only rise to such an occasion once all other options have failed. The patriot loses the option by failing to recognize and understand when that stage is imminent.
Wake up, people!
Greg
Last edited:
Exactly Greg, the moral high ground matters. If the fight isn't about principle then you shouldn't be fighting.
Yes, and that is why I am not espousing, and probably will never espouse insurgency.
Once seen, such can never be unseen. It is ugly beyond essentially anyone's imagination. Despite heroic-class censorship, this fact is even understandable from 6:00 o'clock news footage from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
What do people think the VC were doing, anyway? BTDT, never want to see that sh+t again.
Better think long and hard before loosing that particular genie within borders of the Domestic USA. Relatives, friends, and neighbors could well lose everything, possibly at one's own hand.
We are all hostages to our loved ones. When we leave the beaten path, we endanger far more than just ourselves. Before such a departure, it would pay well to think through all the potential consequences.
So should the grabbers think on this, because that's what they are urgently seeking in the long run. Personally, I don't believe they will ever learn that lesson soon enough to avert just that.
Beware the man who seeks confrontation, he will always find it.
Greg
Once seen, such can never be unseen. It is ugly beyond essentially anyone's imagination. Despite heroic-class censorship, this fact is even understandable from 6:00 o'clock news footage from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
What do people think the VC were doing, anyway? BTDT, never want to see that sh+t again.
Better think long and hard before loosing that particular genie within borders of the Domestic USA. Relatives, friends, and neighbors could well lose everything, possibly at one's own hand.
We are all hostages to our loved ones. When we leave the beaten path, we endanger far more than just ourselves. Before such a departure, it would pay well to think through all the potential consequences.
So should the grabbers think on this, because that's what they are urgently seeking in the long run. Personally, I don't believe they will ever learn that lesson soon enough to avert just that.
Beware the man who seeks confrontation, he will always find it.
Greg
Last edited:
I know, but the reality is that if one man has it in his nature to be a man of principle and another man's nature is to be a tyrant, conflict is inevitable unless one of the men moves off their position. For my children's sake lets hope principle prevails without a fight, but if a fight is what it takes then it should come. As my sig line says, some things are worse than war. The full quote is:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Unfortunately life is more complex than that.
What if one principle requires sacrificing other ones? What if your principals are leading you towards an ultimately negative outcome, the so called Pyrrhic victory?
Greg just said it, "Beware a man who seeks confrontation, he will always find it". Rattling sabers is a job of politicians, and if you are really looking for a fight, it's not hard to start one. You might win a couple battles but the war is a different beast altogether. Be mindful of what your endgame is and if this is the best way to achieve it.
From the current state of affairs, I think there are miles to go before anyone is backed into a corner far enough to justify a fight, so why give your opponents more fodder or draw the negative attention to yourself which may make preparing for a fight more difficult if it should eventually come?
At this point in time, there are better options.
I agree with what you have said. You seem to infer something I am not saying...in my earlier posts I said 1) we arent there yet this is a hypothetical and 2) we need to make sure our leadership has a realistic view of their own capabilities so they dont try something stupid. I can't count how many liberals I have run into that laugh off the Second Amendment as a guard against tyranny, because "you know, the government has tanks and bombers and nukes." So they dont get it, and it makes them arrogant and more likely to keep ignoring the rule of law. Even after a failed ten year insurgency effort in Iraq with all the advantages we had there, the vast majority of the leadership in this country have no perception of the real strength of the American people. We should make them understand, peacefully, so we never have to do so forcefully.
I say this because you seem to confuse my analysis of the reality of such a fight with some willingness on my part to have it. I assure you that is not the case, it is something we should go to every length to avoid. Nevertheless, if after every alternative has been exhausted it comes down to living under the oppression so many on this planet have to endure or fighting to be free, we should fight, pyrrhic victory or no. Thankfully we are not there yet, and hopefully never will be. We won't have to face that choice if we start taking our responsibility as citizens seriously as men should, hold our leadership accountable to the rule of law regardless of party affiliation, and in general be citizens instead of mere residents.
By the way, the founding fathers tasked with creating and ratifying the Constitution had this same discussion in every state legislature as they struggled to determine whether to create a union under the Constitution, for fear abounded that a federal government would eventually become tyrannical. One of those men was prominent in the Virginia ratifying convention, and two years later became the first Attorney General of Kentucky. His name was George Nicholas, and his answer was yes, we should join together despite the risk of a federal army and his justification is summarized in this quote of his about the Constitution, drawn from that Virginia debate:
"An enlightened people will never suffer what was established for their security to be perverted to an act of tyranny. It may be said, perhaps, that resistance would then become vain; Congress are vested with the power of raising an army; to which I say, that if ever Congress shall have an army sufficient for their purpose, and disposed to execute their unlawful commands, before they would act under this disguise, they would pull off the mask, and declare themselves absolute...."
The question for us, and indeed for all citizens who would not become subjects, is: are we an enlightened people? Nicholas assumed as a matter of course that if the federal government "pulled off the mask" and began acting "absolutely" outside the rule of law that the enlightened people of the states would not suffer it, that they would rise up. Being a member of a constitutional republic is an active responsibility not a spectator sport, otherwise that which is established for our security may, as the man said, be perverted to an act of tyranny. If that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We must try and become again the "enlightened people" our founders gave us the opportunity to be and indeed expected us to be.
Last edited:
I'd like to reiterate what Papa Zero Three has said, the 18D course is one of the most if not "the" most intellectually demanding courses the Army has to offer. The fact that the OP thinks this guy is not that smart has my bullshit flag about as high as it can go in regards to him being an 18D. So...Relax everyone.
Fortunately we have been in the position to most often "write" the history of our wars. Im sure a reading of history from our adversaries perspective would prove much different.
Part of the failure of sanitizing history is that you lose the learning moment in the fog of propaganda. Perhaps the chickenhawks would have less taste for war if they knew its realities rather than its cleanly written textual version.
Take the Revolution for example - Boston Massacre, Cross the Delaware, Yorktown, Victory - pretty much sums up the typical public education history. Coming from the Northeast I walk the the paths in Lexington and Concord and no conflict ever seemed so pure and righteous. I think my friends in the South may have a different view of how the Revolution was fought but that is not really spoken of.
Here are some history interested people having a discussion of the realities of Revolutionary War insurgency
Atrocities and War-Crimes in the American Revolution - Historum - History Forums
An account from Battle of Kings Mountain
"The battle went badly for the Loyalists, and during the fighting, Ferguson was shot from his horse. With his foot still in the stirrup, he was dragged to the rebel side. According to Rebel accounts, when a Patriot approached the major for his surrender, Ferguson drew his pistol and shot him as a last act of defiance. Other soldiers retaliated, and Ferguson's body was found with eight musket holes in it. Patriot accounts said their militia stripped his body of clothing and urinated on him before burial. They buried him in an oxhide near the site of his fall.
One of Ferguson's mistresses, 'Virginia Sal', was also killed in the battle and was buried with the officer.
Seeing their leader fall, the Loyalists began to surrender. Some rebels did not initially want to take prisoners, eager to avenge the 'Waxhaw Massacre' (or the "Battle of Waxhaws") where Banastre Tarleton's men had killed a sizable number of Abraham Buford's Continental soldiers after the latter had surrendered. (At Waxhaws, Tarleton's horse was shot, pinning him to the ground, leading his men to believe their commanding officer had been killed under a white flag of surrender.)[34] Also, other rebels were seemingly unaware that the Loyalists were attempting to surrender.[31] Loyalist Captain Abraham DePeyster, in command after Ferguson was killed, sent out an emissary with a white flag, asking for quarter. For several minutes, the Patriots rejected DePeyster's white flag and continued firing, many of them shouting, "Give 'em Tarleton's Quarter!" and "Give them Buford's play!" A significant number of the surrendering Loyalists were killed.[35] When DePeyster sent out a second white flag, a few of the rebel officers, including Campbell and Sevier, ran forward and took control by ordering their men to cease fire,[36] and taking about 700 Loyalist prisoners."
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Our Constitution was written from a solid understanding of the nature of man. Pretty much all our failings of humanity can be atrributed to an unwillingness to recognize the true nature of what we can become when drunk with power. Sanitizing our history for whatever reason does not help.
I agree with Nicholas that an educated society is required for a functioning Republic.
Hows that Common Core and Tools of the Mind education preparing our future?
Part of the failure of sanitizing history is that you lose the learning moment in the fog of propaganda. Perhaps the chickenhawks would have less taste for war if they knew its realities rather than its cleanly written textual version.
Take the Revolution for example - Boston Massacre, Cross the Delaware, Yorktown, Victory - pretty much sums up the typical public education history. Coming from the Northeast I walk the the paths in Lexington and Concord and no conflict ever seemed so pure and righteous. I think my friends in the South may have a different view of how the Revolution was fought but that is not really spoken of.
Here are some history interested people having a discussion of the realities of Revolutionary War insurgency
Atrocities and War-Crimes in the American Revolution - Historum - History Forums
An account from Battle of Kings Mountain
"The battle went badly for the Loyalists, and during the fighting, Ferguson was shot from his horse. With his foot still in the stirrup, he was dragged to the rebel side. According to Rebel accounts, when a Patriot approached the major for his surrender, Ferguson drew his pistol and shot him as a last act of defiance. Other soldiers retaliated, and Ferguson's body was found with eight musket holes in it. Patriot accounts said their militia stripped his body of clothing and urinated on him before burial. They buried him in an oxhide near the site of his fall.
One of Ferguson's mistresses, 'Virginia Sal', was also killed in the battle and was buried with the officer.
Seeing their leader fall, the Loyalists began to surrender. Some rebels did not initially want to take prisoners, eager to avenge the 'Waxhaw Massacre' (or the "Battle of Waxhaws") where Banastre Tarleton's men had killed a sizable number of Abraham Buford's Continental soldiers after the latter had surrendered. (At Waxhaws, Tarleton's horse was shot, pinning him to the ground, leading his men to believe their commanding officer had been killed under a white flag of surrender.)[34] Also, other rebels were seemingly unaware that the Loyalists were attempting to surrender.[31] Loyalist Captain Abraham DePeyster, in command after Ferguson was killed, sent out an emissary with a white flag, asking for quarter. For several minutes, the Patriots rejected DePeyster's white flag and continued firing, many of them shouting, "Give 'em Tarleton's Quarter!" and "Give them Buford's play!" A significant number of the surrendering Loyalists were killed.[35] When DePeyster sent out a second white flag, a few of the rebel officers, including Campbell and Sevier, ran forward and took control by ordering their men to cease fire,[36] and taking about 700 Loyalist prisoners."
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Our Constitution was written from a solid understanding of the nature of man. Pretty much all our failings of humanity can be atrributed to an unwillingness to recognize the true nature of what we can become when drunk with power. Sanitizing our history for whatever reason does not help.
I agree with Nicholas that an educated society is required for a functioning Republic.
Hows that Common Core and Tools of the Mind education preparing our future?
PS - Regards British Major Ferguson, He was reported to have Washington in his rifle sights during one battle but refused to fire because Washingtons back was turned and it would have been unchivalrous.
Karma said "Oooops!"
Karma said "Oooops!"
