Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/01/2004 5:18:27 AM PST by Fithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Fithee
I recall reading something along those lines but don't know how valid it was.
2 posted on 03/01/2004 5:20:24 AM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
I believe it was related to the confiscation of firearms.

It was more detailed than that. IIRC, it asked if under UN control they would be willing to fire on us. At the time I think something like 74% said no, be interesting to see what the numbers are now.

4 posted on 03/01/2004 5:25:08 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee

5 posted on 03/01/2004 5:25:55 AM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
Believe it was explained as something someone made up as a college assignment.
8 posted on 03/01/2004 5:27:56 AM PST by MP5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
You are mistaken! We got exactly zero for the price of two and we are still paying for it.
9 posted on 03/01/2004 5:29:44 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
I found this at http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr5.htm. I don't know how much truth there is to it, but nothing surprises me when it comes to Bill Clinton.
Open Letter to Our Readers

Combat Arms Survey

On 08 April 1995, The RESISTER conducted a telephone interview with LCDR Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994.

The survey was given in support of his Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis; Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion. (Before joining the Navy, LCDR Cunningham was a Special Forces medic. After the usual exchange of bona fides, and waltzing the Name Dropping Dance, sufficient trust was established for a frank discussion.)

For the record, we are convinced of LCDR Cunningham's sincerity in his claim that the sole purpose of his thesis was to explore what effect Operations Other Than War would have on small unit cohesion. We discussed several constitutional issues with him, as well as the results of his survey. Although there are those who still vilify LCDR Cunningham, we found him to be strongly opposed to many of the non-traditional missions contained in his survey, and a staunch defender of the Constitution.

One of the first questions we asked LCDR Cunningham pertained to the timing of his questionnaire. There had been rumors of a questionnaire of similar content being administered to U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six in the fall of 1993, and the February 1994 issue of MODERN GUN magazine publicized the existence of such a questionnaire.

LCDR Cunningham denied that was his questionnaire and maintained that the first, and only, time his questionnaire was given at Twenty-Nine Palms of 10 May 1994. When asked if he had made test versions, and conducted test runs of his questionnaire to refine his product, he replied that he had not.

When asked if he was aware of any other person, or organization, conducting similar research, he replied that he was aware of no such questionnaire or research. (This raises the question; "Who, or what agency, was surveying special operations personnel to determine if they would participate in firearms confiscation?")

Our conversation then ranged over the construction and content of the Combat Arms Survey. LCDR Cunningham stated that the Combat Arms Survey was specifically designed to elicit responses indicative to the effect the described non-traditional missions, under either U.S or U.N. control, would have on cohesion of small units engaged in such operations.

With specific regard to the infamous question #46, we agreed that unit cohesion would evaporate. Officers who gave the order would make their widows rich, and the most serious threat to the public would be the ensuing firefight between those refused to confiscate firearms, and the bullet-bait who would.

An important distinction discussed regarding the results of the Combat Arms Survey was the age of the respondents and their acceptance of foreign control of U.S. forces. The younger the respondent (in other words; the lesser the pay grade of the respondent), the more amenable he was to Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions, including U.N. operational control over U.S. forces. this was true of both officers and enlisted men.

During the interview we commented that an individual marking an opinion space in a questionnaire merely indicated the opinion of that individual, but was not indicative of whether that individual would, or would not, follow illegal or immoral orders, or perform a mission he had strong personal misgivings about, and that, for the most part, despite personal misgivings, soldiers would follow orders regardless of the legality , morality, or constitutionality of those orders.

LCDR Cunningham conceded that such distinctions were outside the scope of the Combat Arms Survey, but that the margin responses to certain questions indicated that the long term result of compliance with questionable orders would eventually result in intra-unit factionalism and destroy unit cohesion.

LCDR Cunningham further related that the most frightening statistic of the Combat Arms Survey was the number of "No Opinion" responses to a number of questions, most significantly to question #46.

Twelve percent of respondents answered "No Opinion" when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.

We objected that even those who had a moral aversion to following illegal orders would do so, either out of a sense of duty, or for no more substantial reason than the preservation of their military careers, and that the percentage of those who would fire on Americans, even if they disagreed with the order to do so, was probably significantly higher than 50 percent.

We further objected that the personal opinions of officers who would give the orders relied less on their willingness to issue, or ensure the successful execution of, immoral orders, than their desire to achieve a one or two block on their OER. LCDR Cunningham agreed in principle that "careerism' had the logical consequence of diluting moral responsibility, but could offer no substantive evidence to the extent of impact of careerism on unit cohesion based solely on his thesis or research.

Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham's premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces--as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis--we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism.

LCDR Cunningham's thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non- traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit's leadership).

Anybody who doubts this need only talk to the man.

JFA Davidson


10 posted on 03/01/2004 5:29:52 AM PST by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
You want my gun? Come and get it.
22 posted on 03/01/2004 5:51:32 AM PST by upchuck (Ta-ray-za now gets to execute her "maiming of choice." I'm hoping for eye gouging, how 'bout you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee; *bang_list
Posted to *bang_list
24 posted on 03/01/2004 5:55:10 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
Hack looked into this back when he was still in favor at FR and found it to be an urban myth.

It never happened, but the rumor keeps popping up on the net from time to time.
29 posted on 03/01/2004 6:00:29 AM PST by Ronin (When the fox gnaws -- Smile!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
While in the Army in the late 1960's we trained for riot control at Fort Belvoir in Maryland. Most of the training consisted of advancing in formations with bayonets unsheathed. We were told if called to cope with a riot, we would have a limited amount of ammunition. We were on alert for riot response on the east coast in the First Army. We also were told the Army had seven levels of force they would apply to get control. The last level was the firing of bullets which required permission from authorities high up and was considered very unlikely. I got the sense we were going to slug it out in hand to hand combat. We had very little body armour. Our helmet liners were it.

Shortly after I left the Army, National Guard troops fired on students at Kent State. I had the feeling that the National Guard of those days was made up of less disciplined soldiers, and they panicked.

33 posted on 03/01/2004 6:17:41 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
I was in the Marines when he was elected, and heard of no such questionnaire.

Marine Inspector

38 posted on 03/01/2004 6:52:19 AM PST by Marine Inspector (Never underestimate the powers of a Dark Clown Darth BoBo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
The survey may or may not have been a myth. But what is not a myth is the fact that at least one policeman that I know flat out stated that he would shoot it out with his own father if an order came down to confiscate all firearms.

Maybe it's time to survey policemen on the question.

40 posted on 03/01/2004 6:58:23 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
bttt
53 posted on 03/01/2004 7:53:19 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
Subject:
-> The Pentagon has Classified the results of a survey taken last May 10 at
-> a southern california Marines Corps base to determine if the servicemen
-> would
-> be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens" in a Federal program to
-> confiscate privately-owned firearms. In addition, claims by the Navy
-> that the survey was given only to Marines at the California base appears
-> to be false.

-> 300 TOOK SURVEY

-> The 300 Marines who took the survey - on a voluntary basis according to
-> Hoffman {Judge Advocate at the base} - were asked whether they agreed,
-> disagreed or had no opinion regarding a number of situations or
-> scenarios, outlined on the survey, most of which dealt with serving in
-> multi-national or United Nations commands.
-> The final statement ,however, shocked Americans when they learned about
-> it (SPOTLIGHT, July 25).
-> The statement was : "The U.S. Government declares a ban on the
-> possession, sale and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty
-> (30) day amnesty is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to
-> local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen
-> groups refuse to turn over thier firearms.
-> Consider the following statement: "I will fire upon U.S. citizens who
-> refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S.
-> government."

-> WHY A SECRET
-> The question which now arises from the incident is why the details of a
-> student's post-graduate studies, if indeed they are so "innocuous", have
-> been CLASSIFIED {ed-emphasis} by the Navy and the Marines.

-> The Navy claims that the survey was given only to Marines at Twentynine
-> Palms. However, last January the SPOTLIGHT and Modern Gun magazine
-> reported that a survey posing the same question about servicemens
-> willingness to shoot at American citizens in a gun confiscation program
-> was given to
-> elite Navy SEAL's. >From Army Special Forces sources, the SPOTLIGHT has
-> determined that the survey was first presented to Navy SEAL Team Six
-> last Sept. 15 and then to other SEAL units through the rest of
-> September and then in October {1993}. Last January 22 {1994} the
-> Internet,the huge nation wide computer network, carried a message
-> from SEAL Team Six Petty Officer 2nd Class, W. Kelly to a D.Hankins.
-> In the Internet message Kelly said the survey had been given to
-> determine, "if we would follow the orders of commanding officers
-> without question." "If you wish to find out how I answered," Kelly
-> continued, " I said YES, I WOULD FIRE AND KILL ALL PERSONS ATTEMPTING
-> TO RESIST. WE AREN'T AROUND TO BE THE GOOD GUYS.
58 posted on 03/01/2004 8:27:24 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
February 26th, 1993: First World Trade Center Attack.

February 26th, 1993:Waco

88 posted on 03/07/2004 10:02:11 AM PST by ChadGore ("Maybe they thought Saddam would lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fithee
I remember that back in 1993
94 posted on 03/07/2004 2:09:05 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson