will US troops fire on American Citizens

I think soldiers will react the same as the rest of us. If they are fired upon, they will protect their own. If ordered to fire on unarmed citizens, I pray they would refuse that unlawful order. If ordered to disarm citizens by force if necessary, I don't know what would happen.

 

Only time will tell if "bothers and sisters in arms will stand in the sights of there bothers and sisters in arms. I can not make that call until we are in the fog of war.

 

Even in the civil war, families were firing upon each other for different beliefs. I would say it depends on what our joke of a media has to say about the situation.

 

If and when this second internal war happens; why would I be where they can?

 

IMO, that crosses the line which would set our military off.


The Warrior Song - YouTube

Quite a load..

 

Y"all aught to know by now how I feel about "Blue Helmets" carrying arms in America. I don't like to repeat myself. So all I will say is that to me that represents "game on."

 

For them, it would be game over.

 

LOL .... exactly!

 

I second that because when that happens the time for talk and the hope for peacful solution is gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When I joined the military, I swore a solemn oath.

When I ets'd no one released me from that solemn oath.

 

Something I often say myself. Good to it coming from other folk.

 

It is the reality and to be quite blunt, it wouldn't matter if they did release me.

 

Mission Creep

If it were a straightforward proposition, it would be a straightforward answer. It will, however, be anything but a straightforward proposition, in my opinion.

If the National Guardsmen who went door to door after Katrina, confiscating weapons, had found themselves in a different, less confusing and threatening situation; their reaction to those orders may have been different. If they had been mustered for their monthly drill period, and been told "Okay, today we're going door to door and confiscating all personally owned weapons in our town; after the laughter died down, the commander would have had a problem on his hands."

I've been re-listening to a course on the rise to power of the Nazis in Germany, 1928-1936, and considering how gradually the atrocities increased, and how they were presented to the German public. The background was a decade of failed government policies, crippling economic depression, violence in the streets, and fear. People were desperately looking for an answer, for a way out of the nightmare they found themselves in.

Part of the Nazi party rise to power was due to the fact that they had never been in power, so they weren't responsible for any of the failed policies of the past. They represented something new, they represented hope.

Then came the Reichstag fire, which the newly elected Nazis blamed on the communists, so no one said much when the communists started disappearing into concentration camps. "They were dangerous rabble, after all." Then the Social Democrats started disappearing. "They seemed pretty chummy with the commies. They were probably in on it together." Then the Jews started disappearing. "Well, they were never really part of us anyway." Then it was the turn of the homosexuals, then the mentally deficient. Eventually, it was the turn of anyone who dared question them; but by that time, resistance was, in the terminology of the Borg, "futile."

If we ever get the answer to the question - "Will U.S. troops fire on American Citizens?" - I think our world, certainly our nation, will be a different place than it is today. U.S. troops won't be sent out to attack "American Citizens", they will be sent out to help the police control "a dangerous mob", or be sent to prevent a "terrorist" attack. These "American Citizens" will be labeled "criminals" or "terrorists." It's easier to shoot someone to whom you have applied a convenient label.

Just as mission creep caused US Marines to change from being "Peacekeepers" to "Peacemakers" in Beirut; and caused US Soldiers to transition from supporting a humanitarian mission to hunting warlords in Somalia; mission creep will help create the situation whereby an American Soldier finds himself drawing a bead on an American Citizen, who is only guilty of attempting to defend his constitutional rights. It will be a gradual process.

 

1992 LA Riots

It dawned on me while composing my last post on this thread that we could have saved ourselves a lot of typing and pontificating by looking back to 1992. We already have the answer to the question posed by this thread.

In 1992, elements of the 3rd Bn, 1st Marines (1500 Marines), the Army's 7th Infantry Division (2000 Soldiers), joined almost 10,000 National Guard troops in supporting police operations in Los Angeles. Fifty-eight people were killed during the riots, including 10 people shot by LAPD and National Guard troops.

Although we may look on this particular incident and say, "Those who were shot probably deserved it", we have our answer.

 

Off topic, but what a terrible version...
Here, this one sounds great being pumped to your ears by 800 watts:

The Warrior Song - Hard Corps - YouTube

 

No, at least two individuals were shot by National Guardsmen. According to a website at the California State Military Department, California Guardsmen shot and killed a driver who attempted to run them down at a checkpoint. In a separate incident, another driver who had struck and injured a police officer was shot and killed by two guardsmen.

I haven't been able to confirm any shootings by regular Army troops or Marines, but given the same conditions as those encountered by the guardsmen above, I have no doubt that their reactions would have been the same. I'll keep poking around and see what I find.

http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryKingMilOps.html