Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:44 PM Apr 2014

Why bother having a military at all...?

We "won" a war against a country with no real army, and were unable to ensure any kind of peace there afterward.... Iraq.

We've been stalemated/beaten by a country with no real country at all.... Afghanistan.

We've spent $6 Trillion and over 6,000 American lives and countless innocent lives.

For nothing.

An now, a few clowns in Nevada - who've seen "Red Dawn" too many times - make a mockery of Federal law.

We've advertised that we're the world's Paper Tiger, and now we seem intent on showing the world that we can't even control our own homegrown terrorists.

We don't have enough helicopters to "dust them down" and out of there? All those expensive vehicles with treads and armor and shit can't scare off a bunch of paunchy Rambo wanna-bees?

I'm not talking anything as violent at what happened to the OWS protestors, mind you. Just massive force that overwhelms them into retreat.

All we've done is encourage the lunatics. All over the earth...

27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why bother having a military at all...? (Original Post) Bigmack Apr 2014 OP
Are you suggesting use of military force inside the US borders? X_Digger Apr 2014 #1
Well, there are some subversive infiltrators in Nevada... pinboy3niner Apr 2014 #2
Bourgeoisie Bovine! Talk about owning the means of production! ;) n/t X_Digger Apr 2014 #4
Those damn commie Holsteins. IronGate Apr 2014 #6
The clever bastards play a high steaks game. :) nt pinboy3niner Apr 2014 #7
I have a beef with those clever bovines. IronGate Apr 2014 #8
When will we ever loin? pinboy3niner Apr 2014 #9
Painfully bad... TwilightGardener Apr 2014 #10
When we de-liver the manifesto. IronGate Apr 2014 #11
I need to hoof it for an errand myself pinboy3niner Apr 2014 #14
I hope the federal government resolves never to cow down to those guys. n/t cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #16
Hey, the gun fancying right/white wingers think militias are cool. Hoyt Apr 2014 #3
Exception..... Bigmack Apr 2014 #13
And that applies here.. how? n/t X_Digger Apr 2014 #17
Let's ignore for the moment... sarisataka Apr 2014 #5
Your post makes the most sense.... Bigmack Apr 2014 #12
Thank You sarisataka Apr 2014 #19
I will offer a second serious answer. While PC is invoked nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #20
For similar reasons sarisataka Apr 2014 #23
As I said, I kept it on the legal side nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #25
Wow. linuxman Apr 2014 #15
Happened in Boston oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #18
So the proper response is... Lancero Apr 2014 #21
Well, I think that's pretty much what happened in Nevada. n/t JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #22
They could drop a bomb on their house likethey did with MOVE back in '85 KinMd Apr 2014 #24
Never let the enemy choose the battlefield. bluedigger Apr 2014 #26
Amen! CFLDem Apr 2014 #27

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
1. Are you suggesting use of military force inside the US borders?
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:57 PM
Apr 2014

That Posse Commie thing will get you in the end.

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
13. Exception.....
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 12:33 AM
Apr 2014

An exception to Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.

sarisataka

(19,034 posts)
5. Let's ignore for the moment...
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 12:09 AM
Apr 2014

laws which prohibit using the military for LE purposes...

What happens when a chopper "dusts down" some wannbes that decide to shoot back? Or the vehicles with treads and armor and shit are met with molotovs? Neither vehicle is invulnerable.

Now the military could open fire which would end things quickly and will look real nice as it plays on every TV out to Outer Slobovia...
Or the military could be a bluff and be unarmed to avoid such a situation. I can imagine the Congressional hearing that investigates why soldiers were sent unarmed and killed by armed protesters...
The tanks could just run them over without shooting- I've seen that and advise you don't eat lunch before watching...

Overwhelming force is a great bluff- until some jackass calls your bluff. Then the only choices are back down or carry out the threat.

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
12. Your post makes the most sense....
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 12:32 AM
Apr 2014

... but I don't think a "practice exercise" of 25 attack choppers flying close to the deck is in any danger from small-arms fire.

Somebody else suggested the terrorists might Molotov the tracked vehicles....



...I don't believe the guys on the horses will be much of a problem.

I see you were in the Corps, too. Ever been in one of those situations....? You know... lots of dust and weeds flying around... can't see... can't hear shit....
You think those folks could stand that?

Posse Comitatus...? Ike sent the 101st Airborne to integrate Little Rock. If anybody invokes PC, let the courts settle it. In due time. Meanwhile, Federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land.

(An exception to Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.)

sarisataka

(19,034 posts)
19. Thank You
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 01:02 AM
Apr 2014

for a serious reply So I will can the smart ass and give a serious answer

Apaches are tough but can be brought down with small arms if applied appropriately. Discipline is an issue when facing a helo attack, even if it is a bluff, but some leaders with military experience could conceivably bring one down.

The horses are actually a much better idea than tanks. Quiet, more mobile and less logistical support.

BTDT still have the t-shirt. Despite the bluster I think most of the 'militias' are rank amateurs. On Red Force my specialty was mind-fucking an opposing force. I would use lots of smoke, Mk-19s with training rounds, plane and choppers screaming in. maybe do it at night and throw artillery fired flares into the mix. If an assault goes in, blanket the area in CS to incapacitate most of the opposition. (The evil side of me says slip a couple DM rounds in there but that could really backfire) Still even with a light punch there will be some casualties, maybe a couple deaths.

You are correct, PC would be a court issue once it is a fait accompli . It would be a world wide PR nightmare and could end up with some RW types cashing big checks in 10 or 15 years.

20/20 hind sight- BLM should have moved in the moment Bundy put out the call. A public safety excuse would have been a counter to those who would have screamed bloody murder. RW would blame Obama but less embarassment to the Feds overall.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
20. I will offer a second serious answer. While PC is invoked
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 01:23 AM
Apr 2014

It has been severely eroded and the army has a brigade for homeland security...but...we don't even need the Guard or regular army in this case. Even if that is a nice fantasy, back in the land of reality and stricltly legal...

The FBI has more than a few Blackhawks attached to ERT teams, as well as what as what is it, 1000 mine resistant vehicles within driving range? They bought all those for DHS, and it was close to 10K, why I am guessing a 1000 within driving range. Oh and yes, I know black hawks are not Apaches...but if need be, strictly with federal civilian law enforcement the good folks at Border Patrol have a few drones at their disposal too, global hawks. (And that scares the living daylights since they can be armed, they are not for the momemt)

My opinion, the BLM expected the OP to go down smootly and were not ready for these yahoos showing up. There is a photo posted here of one of these yahoos in a sniper nest, well above the main action. That is the problem.

Sooner or later this will escalate where we will need the army and people in internal revolt are committing treason. Nope, PC does not apply at that point. That is actually one of those few times the misunderstood word applies. And this...just gave them wings.

sarisataka

(19,034 posts)
23. For similar reasons
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 01:42 AM
Apr 2014

PC would be the least of my concerns. That is the AG's problem.

Hawks are good birds. What they trade in toughness they get back in making it a 3D battle with vertical envelopement a real threat. They too can be armed for a worst case scenario.

MRAPs don't have the intimidation of MBTs but they would add a deceptive element. One would assume a mass of oncoming MRAPs are fully loaded and so can disguise the true number of agents.

Drones would be strict Intel as offensive use on US soil would give everyone fits. Of course the media need not be told they are unarmed.

Biggest issue IMO is the FBI. I am not impressed by their tactical prowess. Federal Marshals otoh are better than most believe. A multi-agency force with military advisers would have the greatest chance of success if a solid COC can be hammered out.

I agree with your analysis of BLM. Hubris is far too prevalent in many federal LEO agencies.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
15. Wow.
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 12:35 AM
Apr 2014

Fuck me.

You're right. We should have fought a bunch of idiots who mainly own guns to "Defend against government violence and tyranny" by using the fucking military's Tanks and aircraft to chase them out. Brilliant. No self fulfilling prophecy and chance to rile the nutcases further. No siree.

When all you have is a hammer...







KinMd

(966 posts)
24. They could drop a bomb on their house likethey did with MOVE back in '85
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:12 AM
Apr 2014

...same thing..people breaking laws

bluedigger

(17,091 posts)
26. Never let the enemy choose the battlefield.
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 04:02 AM
Apr 2014

We could create a lot of martyrs to the traitor's cause. We have the means and the legal justification. But why do that, when you know who they are, have evidence of them engaging in armed insurrection against the federal government, and can take them down in ones and twos at times and places of your choosing, while building your legal case against them? The federal government may have shown great restraint in this case for many years, but if anything can be shown so far, it is that they are relentless and unforgetting when their authority is challenged. This isn't over.

 

CFLDem

(2,083 posts)
27. Amen!
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 08:15 AM
Apr 2014

I hope all of these rebels enjoy prison food.
Or not. But for their sake they better like turning big rocks into little rocks.

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why bother having a milit...