Our military fired on our citizens before

[boston bean]

Just thinking of Kent State

Would they do it again?

Probably......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRX4R9cYeDQ

[midnight]

1. Didn't they via black water shoot at Katrina victims?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Those had no connection to the DoD...they were private hires

[lonestarnot]

2. In a fucking heartbeat.

[handmade34]

7. my first thought...

"in a heartbeat" absolutely, we would be fired upon, if great numbers of people persistently amassed to protest

[NuclearDem]

3. Some might, but as a whole, no.

[Dan]

13. Ever been in the military?

They will do as they have been trained...make no mistake.

[NuclearDem]

15. Yes, I have, served in a front-line intel unit in Afghanistan

And though a lot of people like to paint all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines as potential cold-blooded killers, I still don't see it happening on a large scale. Like I said, a couple bad apples, but most would rather face the consequences then fire on Americans.

[Teaser]

103. you just got owned.

does it hurt?

[Dan]

121. of course not,

each person is entitled to his/her opinion. His generation believes one thing, my generation from the period when things like Kent State occurred, troops in the major cities, - we know from experience, they have and they will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. A professional force, that has been separated from the population they serve,

i'd like to think otherwise.

[NuclearDem]

19. Physically separated, maybe

Emotionally though? No. I don't see it happening.

[boston bean]

20. You can't deny it happened in the past......

[NuclearDem]

23. I'm not denying it at all

And I'm not saying it wouldn't happen...you can't predict what will happen in a riot. People panic, and tragedy results.

But I'm just saying, the majority of soldiers wouldn't dare turn their guns on their fellow countrymen. Enough of my friends came back from Afghanistan with PTSD from killing Afghans, how do you think they'd react to being given an order to shoot an American?

[boston bean]

26. I think they would follow orders.

I don't think you would see the military holding back like egyptian army is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. And I believe you are correct, as much as it saddens me

[NuclearDem]

36. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that

Our infantry is well-trained, but if you've ever had to use a weapon to kill someone, no amount of training can really prepare you to actually pull the trigger and take someone else's life.

I'll give you that in a riot situation, someone is bound to panic. But I really, really, REALLY doubt that our soldiers would fire on a peaceful protest.

[boston bean]

38. what violence was occurring at Kent State?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Or during the Bonus Army March

(Harlan county, yes people were shooting at people)

I know that the armed forces have at times taken heroic stands (remember the balloon after 9.11 for Arab Camps, like the Japanese American Camps... well they found half the Navy was ready to resign on the spot... no, you do not read that in a paper... I know since hubby was still active duty)... but at times they have not,

I am proud of them when they do the right, if not fully recorded, thing. But like you I am aware that at times they have done just as told.

If we had something like this develop, I am afraid it will be a fifty\fifty if the local troops obey orders, and if they do not... there is always bringing units from afar. (Which incidentally that is what happened at Tianammen, the local PLA units refused... so they brought units from far afield... we all know what happened)

[NuclearDem]

42. I'll give you that,

The Bonus Army incident was a result of MacArthur believing the BA was a commie plot to overthrow the government.

And yeah, you make a good point about local units.

[NuclearDem]

41. Escalation

I'm not saying the students deserved it at all, don't get me wrong, but rocks and spent tear gas canisters were being thrown back at the soldiers. Same thing with Ludlow. That's not peaceful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You realize that rocks were flying

and spent canisters too, last week? You also realize the EGYPTIAN ARMY, for the most part, did not fire back, They kept both groups separated.

Look I know the US army is a great army. But under the RIGHT conditions... see Kent. they WILL open fire. That is HISTORY of the armed forces. By the way, what was happening during the Bonus March?

Oh and PTSD from shoting at a fellow human being, yep... it happens. No they did not volunteer for that. But to believe that the US Military will not go there, under orders... flies against the History of the United States.

By the way, I am pleasantly surprised the Egyptian military has, so far, refused those orders. Given THEIR history (1952 revolution for example)... it does fly against THEIR HISTORY. So perhaps ours will be able to do the same UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. I am just not counting on it.

[NuclearDem]

46. Guess I'm just naive and hoping for the best

I also like to think our military's culture has evolved since the the 1930s or the 1960s (as evident by your husband's story), but I guess it could happen again.

[boston bean]

48. there could still be violence in Egypt... provoked violence

We just don't know right now.

I hope they will keep on doing what they have been doing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Yep, why I am surprsied, and pleased

but I said earlier in the day, we have entered the violent phase.

There will be violence... I just hope it stays intramural to the power structure.

[NuclearDem]

51. See, with Egypt, I think the reason there hasn't been violence against the Army

is because the protestors realize the Army is on their side and trying to protect them.

See most comments in this thread for why this isn't true here in the States. I might be being excessively negative here, but I almost think there's a sulf-fulfilling prophecy being made here; protestors here in the States are expecting to be fired on, so we figure we've got nothing to lose. I just don't see the infantrymen or security forces soldiers I served with firing on peaceful protestors.

[boston bean]

55. You're not saying it would be the rowdy, protesting, rauckus protestors fault, are you?

[NuclearDem]

59. No, not at all

I'm just saying there's a fundamental difference between the Egyptian protestors' relationship with the Army then we have here in the States. If shots are fired, the only people responsible would be the ones firing the shots. It's the military's job to show restraint. If they can't handle themselves in a tense situation, then they have no business holding a weapon.

[boston bean]

60. why do you think the relationship is different? i agree it is, but I think we probably have

differing opinions as to why.

[NuclearDem]

63. Well, the main reason I see

is that the Egyptian Army has shown since the protests started that they're on the protestors' side, protecting them from police and even participating in protests themselves.

If a US Army unit did the same here, they'd be in about ten different levels of trouble.

[boston bean]

65. maybe we're not that far off.

i agree and I hate to be the one asking all the questions, but

if you believe that, how do you think our military would respond to a comparative protest here?

I believe they wouldn't put up with it and there would be force used. possibly deadly force.

[NuclearDem]

69. I still think they'd follow orders to keep the peace

But it's all up to who's on the ground. All it takes is a few really nervous Second Lieutenants or NCOs to escalate the situation, but if the group consists of mostly reasonable soldiers truly capable of restraint, the furthest I can see it escalating to is tear gas, not shots fired.

[boston bean]

72. the furthest it can escalate has already happened here. it is not a common occurrence

probably decades between incidences.

Taking history into account and the relationship the military has with civilians, and no it's not just civilians who are the problem, I can see it escalating to deadly violence.

[NuclearDem]

74. Worst case scenario, yes, I agree with you

But I reject the idea that deadly force is inevitable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. The third Army was ordered to break it up by Mubarak

they did not call the protestors, OIC called their fathers, who told them to refuse orders.

It is more complex than that.

People in Egypt realize this needs to end... I am talking of the JOs. Why I made the allusion to those second Lts. The decision NOT to obey those orders came from enough mid grade officers to be trouble. Yes, we call that mutiny.

And it is not that Americans are expecting the army to fire... historically it has happened. For the record Kent was a very scared platoon of National Guard, and yes training does vary from guard to guard to guard... I wonder if a platoon of conscripts was scared last week... but that is supposition on my part.

But to expect a military force ANYWHERE in the world not to open fire is silly. I know why you'd like to think otherwise... and I'd like to believe that as well. I wish, if we are ever in this situation, to eat my words.

Of course there is an element you are not taking into account... one thing is protestors throwing back spent casings. Another is protestors firing at you... yes I am talking of our gun nuts, some of whom would like nothing more than to have a real hot war... and I also know at that moment they are civilians no-more.

[socialist_n_TN]

119. The US military does seem to be split between..........

a more conservative higher eschelon and a more liberal JO and EM corp. That COULD play a role in how it would occur here too. But yes, that would be mutiny. The junior guys, enlisted and officers would probably have to disobey a direct order with all that that entails.

Maybe we need to start educating the military guys about what's happening too.

[NuclearDem]

123. This, exactly this

The more senior members are definitely the conservative element in the Armed Forces...and while a lot of people want to think the junior enlisted and officers are all brainwashed rednecks, there's definitely a greater liberal element among them. Some of the most liberal people I've met in the service have been Marines and Army O4/E5 and lower.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. It really depends on the conditions

and truly on how scared is that 18 year old, worst, that 22 year old second Lt.

[nomb]

116. The "conditions" almost universally include a ready-made enemy throwing epithets, rocks & bottles

Ghandi knew how to defeat an army, and notice the Egyptians also never antagonized their potential opponent.

Worth keeping in mind should you ever find yourself in a similar situation. :)

[WatsonT]

83. False logic

some mothers drown their kids in bathtubs, ergo all mothers will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. You may want to believe that

but it can and history is a guide.

Harlan County.
The Bonus Army
Kent State.

These are just the top examples of last century.

[westerebus]

54. That makes two of us.

Kent State was 40 years ago. The "troops" at Kent State were National Guard. The kind of troops that hated those hippie commie pinko negro loving freaks who were ruining this god fearing country with all dope smoking free loving protest marches and such!

Different time. Different mind set.

You have way much more to fear from the local police swat team then any one I know in the military.

With two or thee exceptions.

[boston bean]

57. You do not think those same divisions exist today and are even

more starkly contasted?

[NuclearDem]

61. Well, to be fair, the average member of the military was treated a lot worse

during the Vietnam era than they are today by most Americans.

[boston bean]

70. that has some truth to it. but it's no reason or justification to fire on American citizens on a

college campus.

[westerebus]

91. No, I don't think so.

People who are anti war are peaceful for the most part. People who who want to create a fascist one party state are not. It's the difference between the means they choose to change what they don't want that creates the need for intervention.

For the most part, you see NG during state emergencies.

We may not agree with a lot done in the name of the American People, we dissent, we protest, but we don't use the military to shoot down civilians in the streets in this country. That hasn't happened in a long time. The Bonus Army is a scar the US military still wears to this day.

You have to look at the politics, the society and the culture of then and now. There was no civil rights act back then. Women did not have the right to vote. There was no Brown V the Board of Education. There was no Medicare. Social Security didn't exist. No industrial revolution on the scale of WW2. And on and on.

Very different time.

Are there neo-fascists and psycho's in the US Military? A few.

Are there the same kind of people in positions of authority in the US Government? A few.

Can things go FUBAR fast? Yes.

I don't doubt that things can go very bad in limited circumstances.

Look at the track record of para military intervention by civilian police forces in the country.

Do I think the US military would intervene to protect American civilians? Yes.

Do I think the US military would repeat the Bonus Army disaster? No.

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. In a Republican governor's state, they sure would. n/t

[Throd]

5. 6 months ago the California National Guard would have shot people?

For peacefully protesting?

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. It isn't something you get advance notice of.

You should've seen California when Ronnie Raygun was governor. It was a police state. All kinds of crazy things went on. It was fun, I lived there then.

[Throd]

45. Were you full of crap then too?

Sorry, I don't see the CNG mowing down peaceful citizens any more or less under Schwarzeneggar than under Brown.

[Make7]

6. Or the Ludlow Massacre

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
 

[RKP5637]

8. Yes! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

9. There were once tanks and troops on Pennsylvania Ave.

Commanded by MacArthur and Patton, authorized to evict the Bonus Army, a protest group of WWI vets who wanted their bonus pay.

Oh yeah, they'd do it again.

[Waiting For Everyman]

31. After MLK's shooting, there were too - when all the cities were burning at once.

Tanks on the streets of DC is not a sight you forget too easily. (ever)

[OHdem10]

10. Also during Depression when some workers came on Capital Grounds.

[KG]

11. so much for the military 'protecting our freedoms'

:eyes:

[atreides1]

21. Got some bad news

The US military has always followed orders that curtailed our freedoms...not protected them.

While each member of the US military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I believe that the majority of those serving, do nothing but pay lip service to that oath...and have no intention of ever abiding by it.

[Capitalocracy]

12. Oathkeepers say they never will.

but I think if it ever came down to it, they'd add an (unless they're leftist hippies) to their lovely little oath

[TxVietVet]

35. They are tools of the conservanazi bu$hit machine.

They will do it. They are f*cking idiots. They were only created because they believe the conservanazi propaganda. They were created because since Obama is black, they can't obey him. If you get down to the core idea behind it, that's it. They are a prejudiced bunch that would pull the trigger on any that is a minority, a Dem, a Liberal, a Progressive or anyone else the conservanazis at Fux News has demonized.

[Marr]

47. It'd take about 2 seconds for them rationalize it.

'They're not real Americans', or 'this is about treason', or 'in wartime, exceptions are made', or whatever.

That "oath" they take is really about their paranoid delusion that an evil liberal socialist communist Democratic politician will try to become a dictator. They'd be delighted to shoot liberals, I expect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. The Harlan County War

among others.

[sofa king]

27. MacArthur burning Hooverville might count, too.

[baldguy]

17. And your guns won't help protect you.

[lonestarnot]

22. dey gots rocket launchers. :)

[NuclearDem]

24. And flamethrowers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nknAzQPHE

[sofa king]

39. I'm not so sure about that.

I just taught a class last night, in part about how a regiment of cavalry was put together out of old men over 50 and boys under seventeen, armed with varmint rifles and shotguns, in less than a week. On the battlefield, they charged the enemy and drove them back for a time, saving a fellow imperiled cavalry regiment which had been trapped in a loop of the Middle River.

But then they got their asses kicked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Piedmont

One of the things I've learned in teaching about Jackson's Valley Campaign (which ended at a tree that still stands and which is also the point where the Battle of Piedmont began two years later) is that there was almost always a disparity in the quality of the weapons. The Union had mostly rifled muskets with an effective range of 400 yards or more, the Confederates mostly smoothbores and "fireplace weapons," some of which could not be trusted to hit a target at 400 feet. Many of the new Virginia soldiers started out the campaign with no weapons at all.

But the Confederates, defending their very homes, were much more willing to use the poor weapons they had, and after Jackson's Valley Campaign, a good proportion of the Confederates had by then acquired the most modern weapons at the expense of the invader.

Before the campaign started, Stonewall Jackson actually ordered several thousand pikes to be made, of basically the same design as that used by the Ancient Greeks, because recently impressed militia units had no weapons at all.

Your bad weapon only has to function once in the right circumstances to yield a good gun. And then the other guy has a problem. That truism is just as valid today as it ever was--and just as difficult to achieve, which is why people defending their home turf are the ones most willing to try it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. Actually they would probably work better against the military than the police

[baldguy]

89. What kind of civilian weaponry is effective against an M1A2 tank?

[virginia mountainman]

97. A tank not so much..

The fuel trucks, ammo, trucks support troops and other "soft targets" common hunting rifles would be VERY effective..

Without fuel, spares and maintenance personal. A tank becomes nothing more than a bunker with a very limited supply of ammunition. Trucks are easy to shoot up, even in convoy, and trains are easy to derail..

Not to mention, their is only about 5,000 or so even built (not counting attrition since new), and the US is a vast land, spreading support troops even thinner.

A civilian based insurgence would be much wiser to stick to killing supporters, political assassinations of leaders of the regime, and disrupting communications. Such a campaign should use the same principle of calculated risk that was used during the early part of the War in the Pacific..

ONLY ENGAGE the enemy when their is opportunity to do far more damage to him, then he to you...

Of course, if you understood military tactics and military history at all, you would realize this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. The army does not use tanks in an urban disturbance situation (which is what I was considering)

To control crowds and pacify neighborhoods its HMMVs and dismounts. City police forces are more experienced in that than army units.

[baldguy]

117. Once you step into the RW fantasy world of an armed uprising in America

With patriotic libertarian militias fighting against a totalitarian govt (always cast as "liberal" or "socialist") which is backed by the US military - you don't get to set limitations on the rules on engagement.

The fact is, tanks and armored vehicles have a very high intimidation factor, can do an enormous amount of damage to unarmored civilians, and are nearly impervious to small arms fire. So, unless our nascent Howard Roark & John Galt wannabees start using IEDs & car bombs (and become terrorists as a result) they're going to lose.

[Dan]

122. I am sure that Detroit was a fantasy....

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Yep you had a very fertile imagination

We also imagined this far more recent use of the guard



Or this from 2002

[Dash87]

18. Yes, in a heartbeat.

:(

[Ian David]

30. During Katrina too, IIRC. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. No during Katrina the Army behaved splendlidly

now Black Water working for the government, not so much.

[Ian David]

37. I think you're right. Nt

[EFerrari]

32. The abuses our military and "security" forces do in and with other nations

concern me much more than anyone shooting at me. Not only for the harm done over there but for the ideas, tactics, habits that migrate back here.

I heard this factlet last night. The Deputy Director at the FBI who was in charge of overseeing the training of Mubarak's kidnapping, torturing, murdering security forces at Quantico is John Pistole. He's retired from the FBI and now heads up -- TSA.

[Puregonzo1188]

34. And during numerous labor strikes. Something we never, ever hear about.

[AngryAmish]

90. Draft riots in Civil War

[Marr]

44. They'd do as they're told.

The drive to conform is very strong. I doubt you'd see more than one in ten thousand refuse to shoot fellow citizens. Frankly, in this polarized, Fox News-culture, I bet a very large number would actually enjoy it.

[NuclearDem]

66. Very few in the military actually 'enjoy' killing

Especially killing other Americans. No matter their politics.

[boston bean]

75. and I'm sure they don't enjoy taking orders, but they do both. take orders and kill. nt

[NuclearDem]

76. Yeah, but my point was rejecting the poster's claim that a large number enjoy killing

[boston bean]

77. ok

:-)

[Marr]

80. Oh, bullshit.

People in the military aren't any more virtuous that people outside the military. There are at least as many far-right jackasses in the service, per capita, as there are in the general populace. Those kinds of people would absolutely delight in shooting liberal protesters.

[NuclearDem]

82. Like I said, very few

Anti-liberal sentiment in the military isn't as bad as it used to be.

[Marr]

93. Then your disagreement is one of degree, not principle.

I think almost all would fire on civilians if ordered to, and I think a fairly large number would be quite happy to do so. Not a majority, but a notable percentage.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. The good news is that you are quite wrong

[Marr]

92. Do you think American soldiers just genetically differerent from other humans?

I'd invite you to read some of the psychological studies that have been done on conformity. People will do almost anything if ordered to by an authority figure, especially under stressful conditions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. Have you ever been in the military?

The military in the US mirrors the civilian populace much more closely than do the police. Many are in for one hitch while cops are lifers. The military is also much more diverse than the cops.

Any person or group of people feeling themselves in danger will attack what they perceive as the threat. However I have a hard time believing the military, particularly the National Guard would accept and order and then commit a large scale massacre of unarmed civilians. Such an order can be and would be legitimately refused.

[Marr]

108. Yes, have you?

I don't see how the differences you claim to exist between the police and the military would matter at all. I'm talking about conformity in a stressful moment.

And I seriously doubt the whole thing would happen the way you describe; with soldiers being deployed with specific plans to shoot civilians. More likely it would be a situation more like crowd control, with the order to fire given sometime later. That's how it's happened in the past.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. I have as well

Its not conformity, its fear, and as I said under the right circumstances anyone whould lash out at those perceived as attacking them. It is not just police or the army.

I agree about the scenario though I disagree with those who claim it would be a planned attack upon civilians by the military. It would be a small group in fear of being attacked/killed.

[Ozymanithrax]

52. Read about the WW I vetrans, called the Bonus Army, attacked machine guns..

and fixed bayonets. Yes, the Army has fired on civilians here in the U.S.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

[nomb]

113. MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton. It was quite a day. Surprised it was only mentioned this far down

[inna]

53. yes, without any doubt. the question is "when", not "if".

[sufrommich]

56. Some of the comments in this thread are good examples of why

the left in this country is so completely marginalized and why the right gets away with their "America haters" meme again and again. Do none of you come from families with past or present soldiers? If so,are they psychotic killers? Even if you don't have military in your own family,do you know how many Americans do?Honest to God, use a little common sense.

[boston bean]

58. Facts. it happened before what makes you think it couldn't happen again?

and because it happened before doesn't make us the haters of AMERICA.

[sufrommich]

62. Comments like these aren't "facts":

The US military has always followed orders that curtailed our freedoms...not protected them.

"While each member of the US military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I believe that the majority of those serving, do nothing but pay lip service to that oath...and have no intention of ever abiding by it."


"The drive to conform is very strong. I doubt you'd see more than one in ten thousand refuse to shoot fellow citizens. Frankly, in this polarized, Fox News-culture, I bet a very large number would actually enjoy it."

"yes, without any doubt. the question is "when", not "if"."

[boston bean]

68. there is a point to be made with each of those comments.

I don't hate the military. I do support it.

I do believe that they wouldn't hesitate to fire if ordered to, on American citizens.

[NuclearDem]

71. Yeah, there might be a little bit of a point

But I think it mostly gets lost in the broadbrush stroke.

[EFerrari]

73. The right gets away with that because they own the media.

Even if every single post in this thread was positive toward the military, they'd still get away with it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. If you own the media you can invent facts

by the way, you do know Fox should get an award in creative writing, right?

The rest follow in the echo machine

The left hates america is part of that fiction, and you have bought it.

[sufrommich]

79. Oh for God sake. I have not "bought into it". Broadbrush

vitriol aimed at soldiers is just stupid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Some people in BOTH the RIGHT AND THE LEFT

engage in it.

But the Armed Forces of the US have fired on civilians before. The MOST RECENT incident is Kent State. So to believe that they will not is silly. The history is there. If they do not, it will require the kind of apparent revolt we have seen in the armed forces of Egypt. By the way, it does have a name, Mutiny. Of course it is not mutiny when you are on the winning side.

By the way the fear from the RIGHT, is deep enough they are WILLING TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, as in take up arms. Deal with it.

Oh and before you say it, I am the wife of a retired USN Chief Petty Officer.

And I know a RETIRED petty officer, and a few retired officers too.

Armies do fire on citizens when the conditions are right. deal with it... that is FUCKING HISTORY, even in DEMOCRACIES. At times armies DISOBEY direct orders... deal with it. Having an awareness of this does not make people anti american... in this case, deal with it.

And yes your broad brush against the left IS a RIGHT WING ECHO MACHINE fiction. DEAL WITH IT!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. The army today is not the same as National Guard at Kent State

That said, when sufficiently scared/confused/disoriented anybody will shoot whomever they think is an immediate threat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. And that has been my point all along

it will depend on JOs and NCOs... (as well as some of the leadership)

But to say that an army will not fire is just silly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. I do not think as a "policy" the military would fire on civilians unless the small unit in question

was in serious fear (I am using the civil disturbance scenario). As you know there are well defined criteria when an order can be and should be refused. Firing on civilians except out of self defense is one of them.

My perspective is that the military in the US identifies much more with the civilians than the police do. Many are in for only one hitch, cops are mostly lifers. The military is also much more diverse in background.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. If you are thinking NG units, yes

professional force, not so much. Why they, in theory, cannot do police work in the US... and Posse has been weakened to the point it has.

As a matter of policy the US Military does not take the streets in case of disturbances.

That is the first thing.

Secondly, yes NG identify with the people they serve, but I will NOT guarantee that any armed force, in the right circumstances, will not fire on civilians. In the right circumstances they will.

It is just silly to believe they will not. That goes into our myths, not the reality.

Is there a policy in place? They train for this, the NG trains for things like this. They do a lot of riot control. An army that trains as it fights, and fights as it trains. has that policy in place, When or why will they go there? Historically it's been during riots...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. NG training for crowd control etc has be greatly diminished recently

Though it is still in their mission. The need to have people on the ground in the ME has been sucking the NG and the Reserve units dry.

[Marr]

94. I find it odd that you assume such an opinion means you don't have

any experience with the military. I do personally, and several members of my family are veterans as well. Some of my friends are still in. I have no doubt, personally, that soldiers would fire on US civilians if ordered to do so. History-- not to mention a body of psychological research-- backs up my opinion. What do you have but a happy, heroic myth?

And what is your intimate experience with the military, by the way?

[Ptah]

67. Let's not forget the 'police riot'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response

August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a “police riot” took place. The title of
“police riot” came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information
and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago. At approximately
3:30 p.m., a young boy lowered the American flag at a legal rally taking place at
Grant Park.

The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protestors. The police broke
through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food,
rocks, bags of urine, and chunks of concrete. The biggest clash in Chicago took place
that day. Police fought with the protestors and vice versa. The chants of the protestors
shifted from “Hell no, we won’t go” to “Pigs are whores.” Tom Hayden, one of the leaders
of Students for a Democratic Society, encouraged protestors to move out of the park to ensure
that if they were to be tear gassed, the whole city would be tear gassed, and made sure that
if blood were spilled in Chicago it would happen throughout the city.

The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protestors was so great that it eventually
made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower.
The police were taunted by the protestors with chants of “Kill, kill, kill.” They sprayed
demonstrators and bystanders indiscriminately with Mace. The police assault in front of the
Hilton Hotel became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire
event took place live under the T.V. lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd shouting,
“The whole world is watching.”

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. I would be more concerned about a police massacre than an army one

[Marr]

96. Why?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. IMO the army indentifies with the civilians much more than cops

It is very rare to see the army deployed domestically for crowd control, which lowers the risk as well.

[Marr]

109. Again, I'd suggest you look at some of the social science that's been

done on the subject of conformity. It's a fundamental human drive, and the subtle personality differences you claim to exist (which I find dubious, to be honest) wouldn't likely even be a factor if they did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. 2002 LA

[TheKentuckian]

95. Possibly but I think there is enough doubt all around that has been a part of the push

for more and more mercenaries with heavy armament and extensive military training.

The military has had to draw very heavily from the poor and minorities who are more likely to hesitate to follow certain orders.

The mercs will be used to put down any insurrection here.

[Bragi]

98. Drone zombies could do it

I presume that the people who sit in air-conditioned trailers and operate predator drones thousands of miles away are well trained to dehumanize their targets. I'm not sure it matters to them who they are targeting.

[JackRiddler]

101. On about a hundred occasions. Most significantly, 1877 to break the railway strikes.

Many, many times to break strikes: National guard and federals have done this.

The dispersal of the Bonus Army in 1930, though I believe it happened without shooting, is also paradigmatic -- look it up.


Wait, I did a thread a few weeks ago, actually.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9672536

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. Anything in the last 30 years

which is the practical limit of our social memory?

[nomb]

114. At a minimum - while participants can still bear witness first hand. Kent State qualifies.

[JackRiddler]

115. Our social memory? I'm afraid in recent decades it's been replaced with a cultural simulation.

People remember movies and fashions from the 1960s, or current movies and fashions that play on the 1960s, but this people's historical memory has been scrubbed all too well... and I mean stuff that happened ten, five, even one year ago tends to matter not at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. So true, so true

sounds like the Department of Truth is hard at work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. The Rodney King Riots

while no live ammo was used, the NG units were not precisely gentle.

A few folks ran towards the cops, and LAPD does have a reputation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Oh and while they did not fire

this jewel from 2002 in LA too

[RegieRocker]

105. Read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x394875

[L0oniX]

118. If they'd shoot US students, they will shoot anyone. Just one of many reasons I hate the military.

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. Who would authorize it? Obama? n/t