Time for Marshall law

[StormAl]

No General Confusion will happen again, like at the Battle of the Capitol.

The militia right shot its bolt.

 

[Likkmee]

Time for Marshall law

Who's Marshall law?

 

[StormAl]

Vernon Law was the Marshall in the National League in 1960.

 

[Rigby5]

Maybe it should be marital law?

But it will never be time for martial law because the military is likely worse then any problem we could be having.

 

[StormAl]

Maybe it should be marital law?

But it will never be time for martial law because the military is likely worse then any problem we could be having.

The military's martial law would be effective, so we don't want any side to use it.

 

[Likkmee]

 

[007]

Yeah, lets listen to the dumb racist bitch in the OP who doesn't know how to spell what she's endorsing.

I'd rather listen to her than you fucked up, brain dead pack of shit eating pussy leftist cucks.

 

[Rigby5]

Maybe it should be marital law?

But it will never be time for martial law because the military is likely worse then any problem we could be having.

The military's martial law would be effective, so we don't want any side to use it.

Agreed we do not want any side to use the military on civilians.
But it would not be effective.
The military is not single minded and many would desert or switch sides.
They also are not skilled at controlling civilian populations.
Nor has any military ever been good at restraining an insurgency.
Insurgencies always win eventually, if enough people want to.
The thing to remember with the military, is that it is really the wealthy elite making the decisions at the tops, and all an insurgency has to do is make the military take over cost them profits.
If a democracy yields more profits, then the wealthy elite will dump the military dictatorship.

 

[StormAl]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Who is Marshall

I think she means Inspector Marshall Marshall Mann

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

I was heavily involved in the anti war movement during Vietnam, and I can tell you that those in the military, at the bottom, are VERY anti-war. About a third of the anti war demonstrators during Vietnam, were veterans.

The Pentagon can fool some of the people when they claim lies like Saddam being behind the 9/11 attack, that we was getting nuclear weapons, that he had stockpiles of anthrax, etc., but when it comes to murdering US civilians, I think many in the military would switch sides. Possibly most of them.

 

[StormAl]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

I was heavily involved in the anti war movement during Vietnam, and I can tell you that those in the military, at the bottom, are VERY anti-war. About a third of the anti war demonstrators during Vietnam, were veterans.

The Pentagon can fool some of the people when they claim lies like Saddam being behind the 9/11 attack, that we was getting nuclear weapons, that he had stockpiles of anthrax, etc., but when it comes to murdering US civilians, I think many in the military would switch sides. Possibly most of them.

Your second para has nothing to do with the military mind set.

Service personnel will follow orders even if they don't agree, unless it is something like shooting POWs, and that particularly heinous crime occurred far too often in Nam.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

I was heavily involved in the anti war movement during Vietnam, and I can tell you that those in the military, at the bottom, are VERY anti-war. About a third of the anti war demonstrators during Vietnam, were veterans.

The Pentagon can fool some of the people when they claim lies like Saddam being behind the 9/11 attack, that we was getting nuclear weapons, that he had stockpiles of anthrax, etc., but when it comes to murdering US civilians, I think many in the military would switch sides. Possibly most of them.

Your second para has nothing to do with the military mind set.

Service personnel will follow orders even if they don't agree, unless it is something like shooting POWs, and that particularly heinous crime occurred far too often in Nam.

That was Vietnam.
People are more cynical of the Pentagon now that their lies are universally understood and on record for all to see.
Shooting POWs is one thing, because they are not white, are not US citizens, etc.
But shooting US civilians is something totally different.
So we are talking about 2 changes.
A more sophisticated soldier who no longer is fooled by military rhetoric, and the fact those being murdered would be US citizens, just like their friends and family.

 

[StormAl]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

I was heavily involved in the anti war movement during Vietnam, and I can tell you that those in the military, at the bottom, are VERY anti-war. About a third of the anti war demonstrators during Vietnam, were veterans.

The Pentagon can fool some of the people when they claim lies like Saddam being behind the 9/11 attack, that we was getting nuclear weapons, that he had stockpiles of anthrax, etc., but when it comes to murdering US civilians, I think many in the military would switch sides. Possibly most of them.

Your second para has nothing to do with the military mind set.

Service personnel will follow orders even if they don't agree, unless it is something like shooting POWs, and that particularly heinous crime occurred far too often in Nam.

That was Vietnam.
People are more cynical of the Pentagon now that their lies are universally understood and on record for all to see.
Shooting POWs is one thing, because they are not white, are not US citizens, etc.
But shooting US civilians is something totally different.
So we are talking about 2 changes.
A more sophisticated soldier who no longer is fooled by military rhetoric, and the fact those being murdered would be US citizens, just like their friends and family.

You can believe all that, but you are wrong, I think.

Let's hope we don't find out.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby, you sound goofy.

You do not understand the military mind set in the slightest.

I was heavily involved in the anti war movement during Vietnam, and I can tell you that those in the military, at the bottom, are VERY anti-war. About a third of the anti war demonstrators during Vietnam, were veterans.

The Pentagon can fool some of the people when they claim lies like Saddam being behind the 9/11 attack, that we was getting nuclear weapons, that he had stockpiles of anthrax, etc., but when it comes to murdering US civilians, I think many in the military would switch sides. Possibly most of them.

Your second para has nothing to do with the military mind set.

Service personnel will follow orders even if they don't agree, unless it is something like shooting POWs, and that particularly heinous crime occurred far too often in Nam.

That was Vietnam.
People are more cynical of the Pentagon now that their lies are universally understood and on record for all to see.
Shooting POWs is one thing, because they are not white, are not US citizens, etc.
But shooting US civilians is something totally different.
So we are talking about 2 changes.
A more sophisticated soldier who no longer is fooled by military rhetoric, and the fact those being murdered would be US citizens, just like their friends and family.

You can believe all that, but you are wrong, I think.

Let's hope we don't find out.

Well I agree there are some who would do whatever those who pay them tell them to do.
I am just saying not ALL the military is that way.
Some would remember the Constitution prohibits the use of troops on civilians, (the Posse Comitatus Act), and would refuse or object.

{...

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes which limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. The Act was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981.

The Act specifically applies only to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. Although the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy or the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) and United States Space Force (under the Department of the Air Force) are not covered by the Act either, primarily because although both are armed services, they also have maritime and space law enforcement missions respectively.

The title of the Act comes from the legal concept of posse comitatus, the authority under which a county sheriff, or other law officer, can conscript any able-bodied person to assist in keeping the peace.
...}