U.S. Troops In Homeland “Crowd Control” Patrols From October 1st - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: U.S. Troops In Homeland “Crowd Control” Patrols From October 1st

  1. #21
    You can count on the fact that if a US GI kills a US CIV, that there will be all out war on the US Gov. The US will look like the movie Red dawn ( just with out Russia troops) You will see a raise in the Para military groups and more and more people joining them. Take away the Camo and all US GI's are CIVs. When you train people to kill with out thinking and not how to turn it off. Things do not turn out so well. Lets just hope we do not have Groups of unarmed Civs being rounded up in the US and shot like over in Iraq.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  2.   
  3. The way things are going I can see a time when they will call on federal troops. They did it during the LA riots I was called back to my base, Camp Pendleton, but did not go. They did send in some of the infantry units and they did man check points. If the whole thing goes to hell we will have more riots there may be food and gas shortages and with the unemployment going up more every month we will see more crime small at first but going up more and more. The problem is now we have many more combat vets who have seen and donethings in that environment the triggers will get pulled and blood will be spilled. It is not a good idea to put combat troops into a civil unrest situation. They don't have the training for this we fight to win wars it will be a very bad thing.
    ["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
    - Ben Franklin
    FONT]

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    The way things are going I can see a time when they will call on federal troops. They did it during the LA riots I was called back to my base, Camp Pendleton, but did not go. They did send in some of the infantry units and they did man check points. If the whole thing goes to hell we will have more riots there may be food and gas shortages and with the unemployment going up more every month we will see more crime small at first but going up more and more. The problem is now we have many more combat vets who have seen and donethings in that environment the triggers will get pulled and blood will be spilled. It is not a good idea to put combat troops into a civil unrest situation. They don't have the training for this we fight to win wars it will be a very bad thing.

    You admit on a public internet forum that you were called back to your duty station and "did not go". This is not a very good thing. As members of the Armed Forces, we are DUTY BOUND to obey orders. If I'm given a lawful order, I'll do my best to comply with that order. Not doing so is punishable under UCMJ.

    Apparently there were some of your comrades that DID follow orders and "man check points". The did their duty and OBEYED orders. This brings me to the next point.

    "It's not a good idea to put combat troops into a civil unrest situation". Apparently if troops follow orders and obey the established rules of engagement, then they are able to help in situations of civil unrest. Along with "fighting wars", our troops are very well capable of helping fellow Americans when called to do so.

    As a senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), I have a duty to "lead by example". Disobeying lawful orders is something I WILL NOT do. Not sure what your reasoning was, but failing to return to your post and lead your men isn't something I think very highly of. Not sure if you were a "Gunny" (E-7) back then, but even if you were a "Staff Sergeant" (E-6) or even a "Sergeant" (E-5) back then, this showed very poor leadership. All of the U.S. Marines that I know strive to be the best that they can be. I've mentioned your various posts along with this one and they're shaking their heads.

    Bottom line is that the world is rapidly changing and the duties of our U.S. Service Members need to change to meet the needs of our primary duty - Defending the United States of America. Don't know about your oath, but my oath I took upon enlistment mentioned defending the United States against ALL ENEMIES bot FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.


    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    You admit on a public internet forum that you were called back to your duty station and "did not go". This is not a very good thing. As members of the Armed Forces, we are DUTY BOUND to obey orders. If I'm given a lawful order, I'll do my best to comply with that order. Not doing so is punishable under UCMJ.

    Apparently there were some of your comrades that DID follow orders and "man check points". The did their duty and OBEYED orders. This brings me to the next point.

    "It's not a good idea to put combat troops into a civil unrest situation". Apparently if troops follow orders and obey the established rules of engagement, then they are able to help in situations of civil unrest. Along with "fighting wars", our troops are very well capable of helping fellow Americans when called to do so.

    As a senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), I have a duty to "lead by example". Disobeying lawful orders is something I WILL NOT do. Not sure what your reasoning was, but failing to return to your post and lead your men isn't something I think very highly of. Not sure if you were a "Gunny" (E-7) back then, but even if you were a "Staff Sergeant" (E-6) or even a "Sergeant" (E-5) back then, this showed very poor leadership. All of the U.S. Marines that I know strive to be the best that they can be. I've mentioned your various posts along with this one and they're shaking their heads.

    Bottom line is that the world is rapidly changing and the duties of our U.S. Service Members need to change to meet the needs of our primary duty - Defending the United States of America. Don't know about your oath, but my oath I took upon enlistment mentioned defending the United States against ALL ENEMIES bot FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.


    gf


    What i think he meant was he did not go to the city as he was not sent. Not the he did not come to base but if he meant it the other. Way around i am sure he had his reasons to do so. Coming from a Military family (USAF,LT_COL,, COL,, Tech sgt) Bottom line is service members are PEOPLE TO. Some of them still know how to think for them self's others have become brain washed and can not go to the head with out thinking if it;s the right thing to do. As for this Part
    Apparently if troops follow orders and obey the established rules of engagement,
    LOL that's a joke right there as they do not follow them. They get pressured into doing things that are not with in the UCMJ. Point in case all the NCO's who lead or told there men to Kill Civ's over in Iraq. Where was this UCMJ you speak of then??? They where in fear of other service members so they went with the pack and pulled the trigger. On top of that Do you have any idea how Low the US military has set it's standards, With Cat4 wavier's so you don't even have to get the Min score of 32 (Army) to get it. You just have to get a 16 or over, You do not have to have a clean record any more. They took care of that with moral waivers, We have gang members getting in now who could other wise never passed any of the stuff before. We have gang bangers joining the military Getting the skills and weapons training and coming back to the street and killing cops and other gang members with it. So you say if they follow the rules it will not happen. For the most part if you are a young 17,18,19 year old first time away from mommy and daddy. Your NCO or officer tells you to pull the trigger and waste them you are going to do it.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  6. #25
    POINT IN CASE>>>>>>

    Military Accepting More Ex-Cons
    Associated Press | February 14, 2007
    WASHINGTON - More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as the armed services cope with a dwindling pool of volunteers during wartime.

    The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.

    Defense Department statistics show that the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.

    The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than in 2003.


    The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors - from petty theft or writing a bad check to some assaults - jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006, representing more than three-quarters of moral waivers granted by the Army.

    Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who had made a mistake but overcome past behavior.

    Lawmakers and other observers said they were concerned that the struggle to fill military ranks in this time of war had caused standards to fall.

    "Our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country."

    Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he was concerned that the Pentagon data differed from Army numbers, but said that "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review."

    "Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Boyce said.

    The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.

    "The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.

    The military also does not have programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life, according to a new study commissioned by the center, Belkin said.

    As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military also has relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people with lower scores on a standardized aptitude test.

    The Pentagon said in its report that "the waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military."

    The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses.

    According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of military recruits in 2006 needed some type of waiver, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.

    About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003.

    More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements.

    About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up slightly from 2003.

    Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    What i think he meant was he did not go to the city as he was not sent. Not the he did not come to base but if he meant it the other. Way around i am sure he had his reasons to do so. Coming from a Military family (USAF,LT_COL,, COL,, Tech sgt) Bottom line is service members are PEOPLE TO. Some of them still know how to think for them self's others have become brain washed and can not go to the head with out thinking if it;s the right thing to do. As for this Part LOL that's a joke right there as they do not follow them. They get pressured into doing things that are not with in the UCMJ. Point in case all the NCO's who lead or told there men to Kill Civ's over in Iraq. Where was this UCMJ you speak of then??? They where in fear of other service members so they went with the pack and pulled the trigger. On top of that Do you have any idea how Low the US military has set it's standards, With Cat4 wavier's so you don't even have to get the Min score of 32 (Army) to get it. You just have to get a 16 or over, You do not have to have a clean record any more. They took care of that with moral waivers, We have gang members getting in now who could other wise never passed any of the stuff before. We have gang bangers joining the military Getting the skills and weapons training and coming back to the street and killing cops and other gang members with it. So you say if they follow the rules it will not happen. For the most part if you are a young 17,18,19 year old first time away from mommy and daddy. Your NCO or officer tells you to pull the trigger and waste them you are going to do it.

    Can't speak for other units or branches of service, but I do have confidence that all of my men will obey my orders when the time comes. I've served next to them under fire and they have not let me down. It's a matter of being a good leader. It's up to the leadership to back up their men and provide guidance when necessary.

    Not sure if you were in Iraq during then incident that you're talking about regarding the killing of civilians, but I'll tell you for sure that I wasn't there. It will be up to the military justice system to figure out what happened and charge those who are deserving.

    As for gang bangers joining the military and learning skills then returning to the streets, I don't doubt that it happens, but if you've ever been through U.S. Army basic training, you'll know that there are safeguards in place to weed out the "bad eggs". Like anything, some will get through, but you can't condemn the entire military because of the few that do get through the system.

    I've seen fellow service members as young as 18 serve proudly along side of me and perform courageously under extreme pressure.

    FYI, I'm not a "brainwashed" service member. I follow all lawful orders to the best of my ability and have refused to obey UNLAWFUL ORDERS on two separate occasions. In both cases I was cleared of any wrongdoing and was able to keep the men under my command from disobeying the unlawful orders. It's all about earning the respect of your troops. It takes a lot of guts to stand up against an officer who is issuing an unlawful order, but it's part of the job being a leader. For those who can't cut it, there are organizations out there that will welcome you with open arms.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    You admit on a public internet forum that you were called back to your duty station and "did not go". This is not a very good thing. As members of the Armed Forces, we are DUTY BOUND to obey orders. If I'm given a lawful order, I'll do my best to comply with that order. Not doing so is punishable under UCMJ.

    Apparently there were some of your comrades that DID follow orders and "man check points". The did their duty and OBEYED orders. This brings me to the next point.

    "It's not a good idea to put combat troops into a civil unrest situation". Apparently if troops follow orders and obey the established rules of engagement, then they are able to help in situations of civil unrest. Along with "fighting wars", our troops are very well capable of helping fellow Americans when called to do so.

    As a senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), I have a duty to "lead by example". Disobeying lawful orders is something I WILL NOT do. Not sure what your reasoning was, but failing to return to your post and lead your men isn't something I think very highly of. Not sure if you were a "Gunny" (E-7) back then, but even if you were a "Staff Sergeant" (E-6) or even a "Sergeant" (E-5) back then, this showed very poor leadership. All of the U.S. Marines that I know strive to be the best that they can be. I've mentioned your various posts along with this one and they're shaking their heads.

    Bottom line is that the world is rapidly changing and the duties of our U.S. Service Members need to change to meet the needs of our primary duty - Defending the United States of America. Don't know about your oath, but my oath I took upon enlistment mentioned defending the United States against ALL ENEMIES bot FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.


    gf



    Don't know about your oath, but my oath I took upon enlistment mentioned defending the United States against ALL ENEMIES bot FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

    And when our own bueracrats violate the constitution and use the military against the citizens of the United States, {posse comitatus** who then is the enemy?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Don't know about your oath, but my oath I took upon enlistment mentioned defending the United States against ALL ENEMIES bot FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

    And when our own bueracrats violate the constitution and use the military against the citizens of the United States, {posse comitatus** who then is the enemy?

    At this point it would be a matter of determining what's a "lawful" order. If it's an "unlawful" order, one is duty bound to not obey it.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  10. #29
    What would you think about this?
    The colonel’s remark suggests that, in preparation for their “homefront” duties, rank-and-file troops are also being routinely Tasered. The brutalizing effect and intent of such a macabre training exercise is to inure troops against sympathy for the pain and suffering they may be called upon to inflict on the civilian population using these same “non-lethal” weapons.??? It's just a bad idea all the way around. LEO has taser and pepper spray training so they know what it feels like and do not over use the power. The Military units will have no one to look over them but there leaders. There will be no checks and balance's or power only the Military code of law. You will see a miss use of Less leather force for nothing other then fun. I would like to see how many people they keep in to the military now when they know they WILL BE Patrolling there own home town with orders to shoot to kill if need be. How will that work out when they may have to shoot billy bob from down the street "because they where GIVEN A LAWFUL ORDER as you like to keep saying" I just don't see that working out people join up to kick ass and take names in combat, not combat in there own state/country. People who want to do that BECOME COPS>>>>. It's not that i do not like the Military i love it i just wish they would pick them self's back up to be the great military they use to be.
    Last edited by S&WM&P40; 10-03-2008 at 09:23 AM.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    All these hypotheticals we're discussing have a virtually zero percent chance of actually occurring. We accuse liberals all the time of fear-mongering. Seems like we're doing the same thing here. The U.N. won't be coming onto our shores and there won't be anything worth yawning about on election if Obama loses. Sure, his supporters would be beside themselves for a few days, but I wouldn't count on all out rioting and looting if that happens. The morning after the election, it will be back to business as usual.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast