Oh Noo's for the people of the US

[Iz Man]

What? The one which gives militias the technology to fight chemical weapons, cluster bombs, heat seeking missiles and advanced bombers? Nice one... You have the strongest military in the world, and however many shotguns you own an uprising really hasn't been an option since WWII.

No, the Second Amendment will not allow any kind of martial law to be completely effective if it was tried to be implemented. If you assume that one of the objectives of this mysterious "dictator" would be to disarm the populace (with the goal to impose his will unopposed), than it would be impossible, because of the 2nd Amendment.
There are too many people with weapons that any kind of military campaign against these same people would result in an uprising.

The British had the most powerful military in the world in 1775. Look what happened when it fought a bunch of farmers with muskets & pitchforks.

You seem a bit testy today Guis, lots of name calling and sarcasm.
Relax man, its just an online risk forum....

[vtmarik]

No, the Second Amendment will not allow any kind of martial law to be completely effective if it was tried to be implemented. If you assume that one of the objectives of this mysterious "dictator" would be to disarm the populace (with the goal to impose his will unopposed), than it would be impossible, because of the 2nd Amendment.
There are too many people with weapons that any kind of military campaign against these same people would result in an uprising.

1) Said dictator appoints strict constructionists to the Supreme Court
2) Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment does not apply to the people, only militias
3) All militias are federalized and absorbed into the National Guard
4) Dictator signs repeal of Posse Comitatus
5) Americans are fucked.

Not likely, but possible.

The British had the most powerful military in the world in 1775. Look what happened when it fought a bunch of farmers with muskets & pitchforks.

We had the advantage. We had the high ground and we knew the terrain better than they did. We also fought dirty, while they fought with old Napoleonic rules of combat.

Of course we won, we cheated.

[Guiscard]

You seem a bit testy today Guis, lots of name calling and sarcasm.
Relax man, its just an online risk forum....

f*ck off

[Iz Man]

You seem a bit testy today Guis, lots of name calling and sarcasm.
Relax man, its just an online risk forum....

f*ck off

LOL.
Now THAT"S much better.

[Iz Man]

We had the advantage. We had the high ground and we knew the terrain better than they did. We also fought dirty, while they fought with old Napoleonic rules of combat.

Of course we won, we cheated.

All is fair in love & war.......

[vtmarik]

We had the advantage. We had the high ground and we knew the terrain better than they did. We also fought dirty, while they fought with old Napoleonic rules of combat.

Of course we won, we cheated.

All is fair in love & war.......

Very true, there is no such thing as a fair fight.

[Anarchist]

KSS, while you are right about the documentation and have brought the better arguement on the issue.

I still dont find it comforting that any person can claim 100% control over any country, least of all Bush!

You claim that your constitution will save you from a dictator, that somehow the ideals of your land will protect you. Anyone who lives in this country already knows that the constitution has already been broken, and that our individual forms of freedom have already become void at the discretion of the governments will.

as for a resistance, it would be very weak. The middle east is a perfect example of resistance. Men in tanks are up against men with vests, vests being the best weapon to use against such superior forces.
If you truly believe that untrained men with restricted weapons(shotguns and semi automatics,etc..) are a match to the American military then your dreaming. Its true that some soldiers will refuse to turn their weapons on their own people, and then they will be arrested and hanged for violation of duties.(if this was a democrasy why cant the soldiers go home when they want to?) The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

Mark my words, America is becoming the new enemy

[Guiscard]

KSS, while you are right about the documentation and have brought the better arguement on the issue.

I still dont find it comforting that any person can claim 100% control over any country, least of all Bush!

You claim that your constitution will save you from a dictator, that somehow the ideals of your land will protect you. Anyone who lives in this country already knows that the constitution has already been broken, and that our individual forms of freedom have already become void at the discretion of the governments will.

as for a resistance, it would be very weak. The middle east is a perfect example of resistance. Men in tanks are up against men with vests, vests being the best weapon to use against such superior forces.
If you truly believe that untrained men with restricted weapons(shotguns and semi automatics,etc..) are a match to the American military then your dreaming. Its true that some soldiers will refuse to turn their weapons on their own people, and then they will be arrested and hanged for violation of duties.(if this was a democrasy why cant the soldiers go home when they want to?) The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

Mark my words, America is becoming the new enemy

We still have the issue of whether an armed uprising would even occur! Whatever you think there is in the American spirit, or whatever, it still doesn't make the average Joe any less gullible to propaganda, rhetoric and scare-scaremongering. Do you think the average German in the 1920s and 30s hated Jews, wanted the world to speak German and actively sought to elect a dictator? No! But a great deal of people certainly supported Hitler and agreed with him. It isn't an insult to the people of a country, it is just human nature. What makes you think you won't willing elect and support the president who may abuse these laws to create no opposition and to give him or herself complete control? That is much more likely than a military conflict!

[Iz Man]

Anyone who lives in this country already knows that the constitution has already been broken, and that our individual forms of freedom have already become void at the discretion of the governments will.

Examples?

The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

You obviously have no clue about the military, its people, or how it operates.

Mark my words, America is becoming the new enemy

Once again. Pack your bags, send us a postcard.

[Guiscard]

The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

You obviously have no clue about the military, its people, or how it operates.

Enlighten us, please!

[Iz Man]

The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

You obviously have no clue about the military, its people, or how it operates.

Enlighten us, please!

I will not accept the premise that our Soldiers, Sailors & Airmen don't think for themselves.
I happen to be a combat veteran. So I, unlike most here who degrade those who serve by these ridiculous statements, can speak from first hand knowledge and experience; rather than an uneducated anti-military bias.

[got tonkaed]

The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

You obviously have no clue about the military, its people, or how it operates.

Enlighten us, please!

I will not accept the premise that our Soldiers, Sailors & Airmen don't think for themselves.
I happen to be a combat veteran. So I, unlike most here who degrade those who serve by these ridiculous statements, can speak from first hand knowledge and experience; rather than an uneducated anti-military bias.

Admittedly im entering a bit late, and kinda skimmed so the more irrelavant i get, the more you can disregard me (just in this post though ok lol).

Also i dont have first hand knowledge of military operations but not everyone does, and if i cant make broad generalizing statements about things i dont know about then what is the point of the internet.

To get where we are going....

Part of the issue i have with the increase of involvement in some kind of war against terror against an invisible enemy is that it forces soliders to dehumanize the other people they meet. I cant imagine very many people can put a human condition and face on the urban warfare type of tactics which may be heavily involved in the next few decades of the foreign involvement. When forced to fight with limited information, people become compelled to make snap decisions, and in order to do so, may from time to time be forced to put ordinary rules for behavior aside (i have heard stories). This entire idea makes me uneasy, the idea that people are being broken down and less able to think for themselves (partly because of the seemingly necesary dehumanization, and partly because of fighting in a conflict where you cant know your enemy) and also the idea that this notion of dehumanization is necesarily going to spread into the larger population at home (peoples experiences in a wartime situation necesarily dont leave them, they have an impact on them and their loved ones). The nature of this war creates a very difficult gap of dehumanization (or potential could) and it concerns me a little bit and i suppose gives me a bit of an anti war bias.

[Guiscard]

Admittedly im entering a bit late, and kinda skimmed so the more irrelavant i get, the more you can disregard me (just in this post though ok lol).

Also i dont have first hand knowledge of military operations but not everyone does, and if i cant make broad generalizing statements about things i dont know about then what is the point of the internet.

To get where we are going....

Part of the issue i have with the increase of involvement in some kind of war against terror against an invisible enemy is that it forces soliders to dehumanize the other people they meet. I cant imagine very many people can put a human condition and face on the urban warfare type of tactics which may be heavily involved in the next few decades of the foreign involvement. When forced to fight with limited information, people become compelled to make snap decisions, and in order to do so, may from time to time be forced to put ordinary rules for behavior aside (i have heard stories). This entire idea makes me uneasy, the idea that people are being broken down and less able to think for themselves (partly because of the seemingly necesary dehumanization, and partly because of fighting in a conflict where you cant know your enemy) and also the idea that this notion of dehumanization is necesarily going to spread into the larger population at home (peoples experiences in a wartime situation necesarily dont leave them, they have an impact on them and their loved ones). The nature of this war creates a very difficult gap of dehumanization (or potential could) and it concerns me a little bit and i suppose gives me a bit of an anti war bias.

This is a ery valid argument. I cannot find the source at the moment, other than to tell you I read about it in the New Scientist, but there was recently a major psychological study which concluded that pretty much anyone can be capable of the kind of atrocities we witnessed at Abu-Grahib as long as the psychological conditions are right (or wrong). It was a pretty interesting piece, actually, and it made the pretty believable assertion that, although everyone has the propensity to be a hero, we have a much greater tendency overall to do the wrong thing in situations where those we control are de-humanised, just as modern warfare seems to be doing. It built upon studies such as the famous prison guard experiment and the one where you shock an unseen observer, and came to some pretty drastic and scary conclusions! We cannt just write off atrocities as 'bad eggs', as it were... They are human nature and the guilt lies, at leads partially, with those who place soldiers under such stress and in such situations.

[got tonkaed]

Admittedly im entering a bit late, and kinda skimmed so the more irrelavant i get, the more you can disregard me (just in this post though ok lol).

Also i dont have first hand knowledge of military operations but not everyone does, and if i cant make broad generalizing statements about things i dont know about then what is the point of the internet.

To get where we are going....

Part of the issue i have with the increase of involvement in some kind of war against terror against an invisible enemy is that it forces soliders to dehumanize the other people they meet. I cant imagine very many people can put a human condition and face on the urban warfare type of tactics which may be heavily involved in the next few decades of the foreign involvement. When forced to fight with limited information, people become compelled to make snap decisions, and in order to do so, may from time to time be forced to put ordinary rules for behavior aside (i have heard stories). This entire idea makes me uneasy, the idea that people are being broken down and less able to think for themselves (partly because of the seemingly necesary dehumanization, and partly because of fighting in a conflict where you cant know your enemy) and also the idea that this notion of dehumanization is necesarily going to spread into the larger population at home (peoples experiences in a wartime situation necesarily dont leave them, they have an impact on them and their loved ones). The nature of this war creates a very difficult gap of dehumanization (or potential could) and it concerns me a little bit and i suppose gives me a bit of an anti war bias.

This is a ery valid argument. I cannot find the source at the moment, other than to tell you I read about it in the New Scientist, but there was recently a major psychological study which concluded that pretty much anyone can be capable of the kind of atrocities we witnessed at Abu-Grahib as long as the psychological conditions are right (or wrong). It was a pretty interesting piece, actually, and it made the pretty believable assertion that, although everyone has the propensity to be a hero, we have a much greater tendency overall to do the wrong thing in situations where those we control are de-humanised, just as modern warfare seems to be doing. It built upon studies such as the famous prison guard experiment and the one where you shock an unseen observer, and came to some pretty drastic and scary conclusions! We cannt just write off atrocities as 'bad eggs', as it were... They are human nature and the guilt lies, at leads partially, with those who place soldiers under such stress and in such situations.

lol my turn to be a bit of the geek....the said famous sociological experiments you refer to are the Obdience experiment by Stanley miligram and the Stanford Prision experiement. It certainly poses some interesting questions and shows that it is certainly in the rarity for individuals to be capable of dealing with very difficult moral dilemas on the spot when they arent going to be held directly responsible.

[Jenos Ridan]

In my view it is a necessity in times of dire crisis, which is what this addresses. "Dictatorship Clause"? I wouldnt go that far, in that type of crisis you need a central figure and not a lead by committee mentality.

Also the directive isnt in place to provide further power to Bush, its in place for the acting president, which in the case of Bush & Cheney dying in the initial attack, it would be President Pelosi.
We have plenty of checks and balances in the American system.

On your Hitler point, my only response would be Different time, Different culture. I believe Hitler had control of the Media, that helped.

There are no perfect systems because they always include the Human Element, American Citizens i must admit are apathetic when it comes to Gov't and Politics, I can only do my part by keeping myself, my friends and my family informed.

If it came down to a President becoming a Dictator, I have no doubt the citizens would rise up and remove that person. I'd be the first to take up arms against them.

(I've removed the annoying colours)...

I'm not arguing that in a time of crisis it is very much beneficial to have a central figure in complete control, all I am saying is that it is open to abuse. I'm sure that 90% of all the presidents in the past and future would use these powers for the good of America and not abuse them in any way. The problem is that there is always that possibility of abuse, and that is the scary thing.

If it came down to a president becoming a dictator, the American citizens would have no choice! The president would have complete personal control of the military (uprising? nah...), economy (jobs for dissenters? nah...), lawmaking (further checks on power? nah...) and he would have control of the media! He could pass laws creating a media blackout! Remember that Hitler was beloved by nearly all when he came to power as a strong leader who would bring Germany back to its rightful place as a world power!

If you were an American, you wouldn't have written any of this. Why because it can't happen. Yes there would be an uprising! Americans would shoot the SOB in a week! Complete control of the Military? Ha Ha (wont happen) Stopping people from having Jobs? (ridiculous) Complete control of the Media? (this is the funniest one!). I understand what you're trying to say about Hitler, but we're a different culture with a different history in a different time.

Republics fail when the people lose vigilance. To a limited extent, we need anarchists to always question the system. We need politically active young people (wouldn't hurt if the average voter were better informed, but still) to keep the traditions of democracy alive. Hitler only rose to power by manipulating the system. Could that happen in the US, possibly. But then, it is happening and has happened in all over the world; Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, the list goes on down through history. However, we are not that far gone yet. And we can always turn it around before the fall.

[Guiscard]

Republics fail when the people lose vigilance. To a limited extent, we need anarchists to always question the system. We need politically active young people (wouldn't hurt if the average voter were better informed, but still) to keep the traditions of democracy alive. Hitler only rose to power by manipulating the system. Could that happen in the US, possibly. But then, it is happening and has happened in all over the world; Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, the list goes on down through history. However, we are not that far gone yet. And we can always turn it around before the fall.

Exactly what I've been arguing... how bizarre...

[Anarchist]

Anyone who lives in this country already knows that the constitution has already been broken, and that our individual forms of freedom have already become void at the discretion of the governments will.

Examples?

The military enforces chain of command, promoting those that follow orders. I do not have your blind faith that these men will suddenly learn to think for themselves, at just that moment.

You obviously have no clue about the military, its people, or how it operates.

Mark my words, America is becoming the new enemy

Once again. Pack your bags, send us a postcard.

Examples;
Patriot Act,Gitmo,Equal rights,Abortion,Burning the flag,Assisted Suicide,Suicide,War on Drugs,Gun regulation(weak that it is) same sex marriages,religion(has been violated on a number of occasions),pulling the plug,Income tax,licenses,and I can probably think of more. Regardless America is not the country that the founding fathers invisioned.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams, (1722-1803)

Im sure youll ignore most of this and focus on the few things youll actually try to argue on.

Military- SIR,YES, SIR!

Packing my bags, will you garantee that once I leave American soil that I will never have to deal with American Authority again in any way shape or form(fallout)?

Jenos, well said
Guiscard,

[Jenos Ridan]

Republics fail when the people lose vigilance. To a limited extent, we need anarchists to always question the system. We need politically active young people (wouldn't hurt if the average voter were better informed, but still) to keep the traditions of democracy alive. Hitler only rose to power by manipulating the system. Could that happen in the US, possibly. But then, it is happening and has happened in all over the world; Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, the list goes on down through history. However, we are not that far gone yet. And we can always turn it around before the fall.

Exactly what I've been arguing... how bizarre...

Goes to show how closely our thoughts are on certain topics. Perhaps there is hope for understanding afterall.

Oh, and Anarchist, thanks
Military: You get order, you follow order to best of your abillity and if you need to improvise in order to carry out said order, then you frigging improvise. And fast. Initiative, cunning and loyalty are all required traits in soldiers, especially in squad and platoon leaders. It's more about being a team player than the robotic marching band cog that seems to be the image some anti-military types seem to get. Armies without those three key traits in it's soldiers tend not to fight very well.

[ksslemp]

In my view it is a necessity in times of dire crisis, which is what this addresses. "Dictatorship Clause"? I wouldnt go that far, in that type of crisis you need a central figure and not a lead by committee mentality.

Also the directive isnt in place to provide further power to Bush, its in place for the acting president, which in the case of Bush & Cheney dying in the initial attack, it would be President Pelosi.
We have plenty of checks and balances in the American system.

On your Hitler point, my only response would be Different time, Different culture. I believe Hitler had control of the Media, that helped.

There are no perfect systems because they always include the Human Element, American Citizens i must admit are apathetic when it comes to Gov't and Politics, I can only do my part by keeping myself, my friends and my family informed.

If it came down to a President becoming a Dictator, I have no doubt the citizens would rise up and remove that person. I'd be the first to take up arms against them.

(I've removed the annoying colours)...

I'm not arguing that in a time of crisis it is very much beneficial to have a central figure in complete control, all I am saying is that it is open to abuse. I'm sure that 90% of all the presidents in the past and future would use these powers for the good of America and not abuse them in any way. The problem is that there is always that possibility of abuse, and that is the scary thing.

If it came down to a president becoming a dictator, the American citizens would have no choice! The president would have complete personal control of the military (uprising? nah...), economy (jobs for dissenters? nah...), lawmaking (further checks on power? nah...) and he would have control of the media! He could pass laws creating a media blackout! Remember that Hitler was beloved by nearly all when he came to power as a strong leader who would bring Germany back to its rightful place as a world power!

If you were an American, you wouldn't have written any of this. Why because it can't happen. Yes there would be an uprising! Americans would shoot the SOB in a week! Complete control of the Military? Ha Ha (wont happen) Stopping people from having Jobs? (ridiculous) Complete control of the Media? (this is the funniest one!). I understand what you're trying to say about Hitler, but we're a different culture with a different history in a different time.

Republics fail when the people lose vigilance. To a limited extent, we need anarchists to always question the system. We need politically active young people (wouldn't hurt if the average voter were better informed, but still) to keep the traditions of democracy alive. Hitler only rose to power by manipulating the system. Could that happen in the US, possibly. But then, it is happening and has happened in all over the world; Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, the list goes on down through history. However, we are not that far gone yet. And we can always turn it around before the fall.

I agree, I wouldn't use Anarchists as an example though, i think Libertarian or even that every American citizen should be vigilant is more appropriate. I'm not worried because Americans possess "tyrant radar" and are leery of any administration.

I am anyway.

[Jenos Ridan]

In my view it is a necessity in times of dire crisis, which is what this addresses. "Dictatorship Clause"? I wouldnt go that far, in that type of crisis you need a central figure and not a lead by committee mentality.

Also the directive isnt in place to provide further power to Bush, its in place for the acting president, which in the case of Bush & Cheney dying in the initial attack, it would be President Pelosi.
We have plenty of checks and balances in the American system.

On your Hitler point, my only response would be Different time, Different culture. I believe Hitler had control of the Media, that helped.

There are no perfect systems because they always include the Human Element, American Citizens i must admit are apathetic when it comes to Gov't and Politics, I can only do my part by keeping myself, my friends and my family informed.

If it came down to a President becoming a Dictator, I have no doubt the citizens would rise up and remove that person. I'd be the first to take up arms against them.

(I've removed the annoying colours)...

I'm not arguing that in a time of crisis it is very much beneficial to have a central figure in complete control, all I am saying is that it is open to abuse. I'm sure that 90% of all the presidents in the past and future would use these powers for the good of America and not abuse them in any way. The problem is that there is always that possibility of abuse, and that is the scary thing.

If it came down to a president becoming a dictator, the American citizens would have no choice! The president would have complete personal control of the military (uprising? nah...), economy (jobs for dissenters? nah...), lawmaking (further checks on power? nah...) and he would have control of the media! He could pass laws creating a media blackout! Remember that Hitler was beloved by nearly all when he came to power as a strong leader who would bring Germany back to its rightful place as a world power!

If you were an American, you wouldn't have written any of this. Why because it can't happen. Yes there would be an uprising! Americans would shoot the SOB in a week! Complete control of the Military? Ha Ha (wont happen) Stopping people from having Jobs? (ridiculous) Complete control of the Media? (this is the funniest one!). I understand what you're trying to say about Hitler, but we're a different culture with a different history in a different time.

Republics fail when the people lose vigilance. To a limited extent, we need anarchists to always question the system. We need politically active young people (wouldn't hurt if the average voter were better informed, but still) to keep the traditions of democracy alive. Hitler only rose to power by manipulating the system. Could that happen in the US, possibly. But then, it is happening and has happened in all over the world; Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, the list goes on down through history. However, we are not that far gone yet. And we can always turn it around before the fall.

I agree, I wouldn't use Anarchists as an example though, i think Libertarian or even that every American citizen should be vigilant is more appropriate. I'm not worried because Americans possess "tyrant radar" and are leery of any administration.

I am anyway.

I'm glad you agree. Now please, tune down the bold and color stuff alittle, please.

[ksslemp]

Your request has been noted, my answer is NO.

I'll stop using colored text when Hugo stops wearing red shirts (every friggin day)