Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mil...mo_code=763E-1



    This has been reported before, but the last paragraph of this is worrisom.

    snip:
    And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So outrageous a statement needs better provenance, the URL of a video of his speech or of his attributed writings. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    He evidently mentioned it in the December, 2003issue of Men's Lifestyle magazine.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/185048.shtml

    I have posted the link belowof the entire document from the War College and it is quite disturbing. I noticed on page 31 and 32, it is mentioned that the military oath that will protect against all enemies, foreign and domesticappears to bethe main argument for using DOD forces inside the United States. Domestic enemies are not outlined in any detail.

    http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....cfm?pubID=890


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


    Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and
    reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.

    Wow.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So outrageous a statement needs better provenance, the URL of a video of his speech or of his attributed writings. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.
    Priceless. :P
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mil...mo_code=763E-1



    This has been reported before, but the last paragraph of this is worrisom.

    snip:
    And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
    Task,

    80 million gun owners....1 % might say the Constitution won't be discarded? If an attack of WMD did happen, I think that very quickly you would see the Militia enrollment shoot up and I'm talking about called up by the State(s) effected.

    I took an oath of office also, but it doesn't appear to bethe one Tommy Franks took.


  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    I just wonder, if a group such as La Raza, the KKK, or Nation of Islam decides to impliment some sort of "disturbance" nation wide, who will be the first group blaming the gov't for doing nothing?

    Or do some of these people really believe it would be best for the Gov't to step aside and let us have a civil war?

    As far as I'm concerned, if something isn't done soon, the Marines will be doing a re-enactment of Fallujia in LA.

    That's why I'm moving out in the country, and if that doesn't work, an island in the pacific. You primates might just screw this whole thing up.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  9. #9
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Ya know I get real tired of some folks thinkin' they're smarter or wiser or whatever than others. That comment, "you primates might just screw this whole thing up" was totally uncalled for and unjustified.
    WE as a whole, not in part are going to be responsible for whatever happens, and I for one will not sit idly by and be barnstormed by the Fascist leftwing gungrabbin' bastidges that want to turn my beloved country into a slave state. So what I'm saying is if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! So go on out to your Pacific Island and let the rest of us Patriots try and fix this mess we're in.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Monrovia, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Ya know I get real tired of some folks thinkin' they're smarter or wiser or whatever than others. That comment, "you primates might just screw this whole thing up" was totally uncalled for and unjustified.
    WE as a whole, not in part are going to be responsible for whatever happens, and I for one will not sit idly by and be barnstormed by the Fascist leftwing gungrabbin' bastidges that want to turn my beloved country into a slave state. So what I'm saying is if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! So go on out to your Pacific Island and let the rest of us Patriots try and fix this mess we're in.
    +1



  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So outrageous a statement needs better provenance, the URL of a video of his speech or of his attributed writings. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.


    I would have to imagine such a statement by an active military officer would be seriously injurious to his career. Verification is an absolute with something so significant.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So outrageous a statement needs better provenance, the URL of a video of his speech or of his attributed writings. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.


    I would have to imagine such a statement by an active military officer would be seriously injurious to his career. Verification is an absolute with something so significant.
    Good ole' Tommy's not Active...he's been retired since '03.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    I just wonder, if a group such as La Raza, the KKK, or Nation of Islam decides to impliment some sort of "disturbance" nation wide, who will be the first group blaming the gov't for doing nothing?

    Or do some of these people really believe it would be best for the Gov't to step aside and let us have a civil war?

    As far as I'm concerned, if something isn't done soon, the Marines will be doing a re-enactment of Fallujia in LA.

    That's why I'm moving out in the country, and if that doesn't work, an island in the pacific. You primates might just screw this whole thing up.
    So long.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So outrageous a statement needs better provenance, the URL of a video of his speech or of his attributed writings. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.


    I would have to imagine such a statement by an active military officer would be seriously injurious to his career. Verification is an absolute with something so significant.
    Good ole' Tommy's not Active...he's been retired since '03.
    Yeah but the OP said the quote was from '03. Perhaps he had just gotten out then opened his mouth. Still not what one might expect from a military officer, but then again look at Colin Powell's comments some years back about the Second Amendment and privately owned firearms.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    MetalChris wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:


    I would have to imagine such a statement by an active military officer would be seriously injurious to his career. Verification is an absolute with something so significant.
    Good ole' Tommy's not Active...he's been retired since '03.
    Yeah but the OP said the quote was from '03. Perhaps he had just gotten out then opened his mouth. Still not what one might expect from a military officer, but then again look at Colin Powell's comments some years back about the Second Amendment and privately owned firearms.
    Oops my bad.

    RIF

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Gen Tommy Franks did not state any desire for the abolition of our Constitution, he warned against it. As testament to his words, just look at what happened in New Orleans; Constitutional rights were abandoned.

    As for the theme of the original article, the military does train for domestic disturbances and has frequently had to deal with them but never on our own soil - with the exception of the National Guard - so, why would they not train for it especially while in the middle of two domestic conflicts?

    I have seen these alarmist allegations appear many times and each of them fail to recognize one truth, that the military is composed of individuals that believe in the Constitution are not not mindless robots.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mil...mo_code=763E-1



    This has been reported before, but the last paragraph of this is worrisom.

    snip:
    And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
    I agree with him.With theway things have been dealt with in the past, and the way things seem to be going, this seems like a relatively accurate prediction. I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, and I don't believe he was either.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Army needs to expand, Pentagon says
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,0,89782.story

    They need 30K more troops according to the article.

    I guess that includes the 20K DHS promised to 'quell domestic disturbances'.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    I just wonder, if a group such as La Raza, the KKK, or Nation of Islam decides to impliment some sort of "disturbance" nation wide, who will be the first group blaming the gov't for doing nothing?

    Or do some of these people really believe it would be best for the Gov't to step aside and let us have a civil war?

    As far as I'm concerned, if something isn't done soon, the Marines will be doing a re-enactment of Fallujia in LA.

    That's why I'm moving out in the country, and if that doesn't work, an island in the pacific. You primates might just screw this whole thing up.
    thats pretty ironic, coming from someone with the moniker 'prayingforwar', don't ya think?

  20. #20
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Francis Marion wrote:
    Gen Tommy Franks did not state any desire for the abolition of our Constitution, he warned against it. As testament to his words, just look at what happened in New Orleans; Constitutional rights were abandoned.

    As for the theme of the original article, the military does train for domestic disturbances and has frequently had to deal with them but never on our own soil - with the exception of the National Guard - so, why would they not train for it especially while in the middle of two domestic conflicts?

    I have seen these alarmist allegations appear many times and each of them fail to recognize one truth, that the military is composed of individuals that believe in the Constitution are not not mindless robots.
    I would tend to agree. Most of the people I serve with would sooner turn in their uniforms than be part of something, (official or not) that discards the Constitution. My "boss" may be the presiding president, but only so long as he follows and upholds the Constitution. I think the mass majority of men and woman who are serving in uniform would agree.

    My job is to protect and defend the citizens of the United States, not to carry out the personal whims of an elected official. Elected officials come and go, the Constitution and its amendments will outlive us all if I have anything to say about it.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

  22. #22
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Combat Arms 29 Palms Survey
    And what was the outcome? I didn't see any survey results.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I do hope that this is not the first time that you have seen mention of this survey. I do not recall any mention of the results. That the survey was taken is disturbing enough. Statistics alone require some disturbing results. Correlation not being cause, paramilitarization of police has become more outrageous since 1994.

    The action of the OP suggests internal support.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    From that survey:
    The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
    Testing the waters, huh? I hope they received a resounding NO from all who took that survey. God help the poor boy that answered yes if/when that day comes.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    My gloomy worst-case assessment:

    I would like to think that our armed force servicemen are all committed to defending our rights, but even those who are define that defense within the scope of what information and indoctrination they are provided from above.

    All that is needed to get American troops to engage in operations which violate citizens' rights is to convince them that these citizens are lawless rebels who represent a threat to peace, law, and order under the Constitution.

    That's easy. A few propaganda films of people throwing rocks or spitting on soldiers or burning flags is all it would take to get a 19-year-old flag-waving graduate of public school to do what he's told and kick in some doors.

    Of course when it happens, it won't be that fast. There will be a long lead-in time period in which both the military and the public are conditioned to accept the use of military forces for domestic purposes, to accept seeing soldiers doing roadblocks and DUI checkpoints, to seeing them in airports and train stations, etc. An accompanying re-write of public school propaganda will help to ensure that tomorrow's 19-year-old never questions the use of troops in such situations.

    By the time the order is given for troops to kick in doors and look for guns, they will have already been doing so looking for drugs for years, so it will not seem to out of the ordinary for the soldiers or the public.

    Of course, all of this isn't really necessary; at the rate with which we are militarizing our police forces we really don't need to use our army domestically, anyway.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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