Posted on 09/27/2010 9:17:01 AM PDT by Jack Black
You make a good point. Permit me then to rephrase that.
Liberals, lefties and their ilk have no loyalty and are full of seething hate.
With that done, I think I am safe in saying that they would turn in conservatives to the Secret Police in a heartbeat.
I have know some libs well for 30 years that are very nice people until their liberal faith is challenged. The hate that bubbles out borders on pathological, IMO.
I disagree on almost all counts.
#1 I have a friend who's son is a West Point graduate serving in Iraq and who previously did two tours of Afghanistan. The young captain is highly decorated for valor. He is also an atheist and a card carrying liberal who loves Obama and reviles Bush. I asked him that question and he asserted to me that in his INFORMED opinion (and I think he would indeed know) there is no way that the standing army would turn their weapons on the citizenry. Now he can't speak for the various state level guard units. Witness what happened during the gun grabs of Katrina.
#2 100 MILLION gun owners. A huge chunk of them former military and a substantial chunk of those combat veterans. Even if 90% of the gun owners meekly submitted to tyranny that would still leave TEN MILLION hard corps experienced folks with weapons in their hands and an itch to squeeze triggers. Think of the havoc caused in both Iraq and Afghanistan by insurgents. Guerilla warfare favors the guerillas. Think of the Mujahadeen and their Jihad against the USSR. It took a long time but which one left the country whipped? Don't talk to me about STINGERS either! Yeah, we helped with the Soviet HIND-D assault helicopter issue but those old mountain boys already had the Russkies well in hand by the time the famous Charlie Wilson started in the weapons procuring business. The point is, a crushing tyranny is not a fait accompli in such a situation. It would be bloody and it would be long just like the FIRST American Revolution, but in the end, I think we would prevail.
Agreed..........
If the election system cannot be trusted, then the country is lost and the only next step is revolution.
I think that when we talk about the potential for a military enforced tyranny in the US, it is essential to consider not just the fact that we have a well armed populace. The logistics of militarily controlling an area as large as the US have to include stark geographic realities. It is BIG, very big. Terrain is very diverse. Huge amounts of non urban areas. We could have small armies of insurgents (that’s patriots) all over the place. The despots couldn’t support a standing army of sufficient numbers to hold much of the territory outside of major urban areas.
“
Through a combination of massive, Somali-driven voter fraud,...
“
Thanks for posting.
I live in Mid-Missouri and haven’t heard a peep about this.
Not shocking, as I live in a city with the FIRST and premier journalism
school (alma mater of Walter Cronkrite and Mao-apologist Edgar Snow).
It was funny, his level of insane hatred just bubbled out of them. Many conservatives are more than willing to admit it when our leaders suck. Bush took a lot of lumps here, an we drive truly corrupt leaders from the field, like Randy Cunningham and Larry Craig.
Dems don't clean up their own house. Libs never will admit that any LibDem (liberal, ok, point taken above there are many historic Dems who aren't like this, like my mom!) have done wrong.
They become enraged and start spouting obscenities and wanting to fight when they are shown facts that contradict their fantasy narrative.
It's fun to watch.
Oh, be still my heart!
UN troops in America - a chance to eliminate both Foreign and Domestic enemies at the same time! Excellent. The stuff every redblooded American patriot has been dreaming of since Jane Fonda was still an attractive little whore conspiring with the enemy!
I'm reminded by the quote from Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller:
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"
The US divided into 7 districts? That makes for a great deal of "border" to enforce. Although it has some advantages, it also has drawbacks.
What would be the potential for foreign intervention by UN forces or others?
Not much I would think. At least in the sense of making a strategic military difference. It doesn't seem likely that the French or Dutch or Germans would lend many (if any) troops to a UN "peacekeeping" force deployed in the US. However, I can see Obama getting a small number of forces that could be technically seen as UN involvement. Just enough to make the claim that it is a "multinational force" helping restore order. Complete BS, of course.
OTOH, if we envision an international economic crisis / collapse that enabled Obama to justify martial law or such, it seems unlikely that anyone in the EU would be in the condition to loan out troops. The $hit will be hitting the fan everywhere in the west.
It's been happening for a while now. I saw it in 2001. I wonder how long it has been going on?
Actually google civlian disarmament and 29 Palms. Most of the “trigger pullers” in the military are “like us”. They probably would NOT obey illegal orders to fire on or disarm US patriots. While any attempt by libtards who through deception have temporarily taken control of our country may be messy it wouldn’t go the way they would wish. IMHO. I think they fully realize this and the last thing they would do is let things slide that direction. They are bluffing on a VERY bad hand.
THe last time they had this kind of power they let a couple “little things” like Ruby Ridge and Waco get out of hand. I don’t know if you recall but I do. There was a “tax protestor” who was holed up out in Wyoming or one of those “empty Western states” and the FBI, et. al. had his place surrounded and the media was on it 24/7 like it was gonna be another Ruby Ridge. There were folks descending on the FBI by the hundreds from all directions. It was hilarious (but in a very dangerous way). THe FBI had roadblocks on all the roads a few miles away from the guy’s place and the “patriots” had roadblocks on the same roads just outside the cordon the FBI put up. It was like Americans were telling the gummint, “You may have HIM ‘bottled up’, but WE have YOU.” Crap like Ruby Ridge stopped happening after this little event.
I have heard this one and I wonder if Chesty also said it: "The poor bastards have us surrounded. Now we can attack in any direction!" Or was that Patton?
> There was a “tax protestor” who was holed up out in
> Wyoming or one of those “empty Western states” and the
> FBI, et. al. had his place surrounded and the media was
> on it 24/7 like it was gonna be another Ruby Ridge.
Yes, I do remember this, albeit dimly.
More recently, there was a tax protester holed up in his house up here in New Hamshire. It ended peacefully, but it was very tense for a time. There was no call to arms among the populace, though.
That is a good point. So are some of the others.
it's all just conjecture anyway
Conjecture yes. But the fact that intelligent people see a need to discuss it seriously tells me that it is more than just an idle academic discussion. Many of us have a legitimate fear of things like this happening.
Another point. We can debate the manner in which various scenarios might play out, how successful a military suppression could be. But most here would agree on one thing. The current crop of socialists in DC would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
I know a Democrat that has openly admitted he wold like to see all political parties other than the Democrats made illegal. He wasn't being academic, nor was he being facetious.
100% spot on correct. In the sentences I underlined above lies the fundamental and only difference between socialists and communists: Use of force to accomplish the agenda.
I know a Democrat that has openly admitted he wold like to see all political parties other than the Democrats made illegal. He wasn't being academic, nor was he being facetious.
I have heard Democrats utter similar statements and in doing so it always frightens me to the extent that not only do they not see a danger in those views, but they think we're the dangerous enemies for our will to challenge the tyranny to the extent of lethal combat. They could never do that themselves. They have to rely on police and military entities. Oppression by proxy is still oppression. I fundamentally believe that is the reason the democratic party so unilaterally embraces gun control, because they see our access to firearms as the primary obstacle to their ultimate goals.
If that happens, we could very well see the start of the American Revolution, Part 2.
Good news is that most who serve in the military or in the LO positions are center-right and will not support any, and I do repeat any illegal actions.
Plus as I had said, President Obama is so hated by the military right now, I have my doubts that they will support in any way, shape or form and are rightly are concerned about their votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.