Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: shhrubbery!

Couple observations if I may:

1. Most active-duty military personnel are “red” staters. Most veterans (i.e. people that know a butt from a barrel and can actually aim a weapon) are “red” staters. So there’s some advantage.

2. It’s very difficult to get *regular* soldiers (as opposed to “security-forces” types like the old ZOMO in Poland or Securitate in Romania that were actually chosen from sociopaths and trained to kill civilians) to fire on their “own” people. In the USSR, in 1962, bread riots broken out in the south Russian city of Novocherkassk. Local police were ineffective, so regular army soldiers were brought in. Instead of suppressing the rioters, the soldiers actually acted in sympathy with them! Kazakh Interior Ministry troops, who viscerally hated Russians, had to be brought in to put the riot down. Just an example.


46 posted on 11/07/2012 11:07:15 AM PST by teflon9 (Political campaigns should follow Johnny Mercer's advice--Accentuate the positive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: teflon9
Agree with you about current active duty military personnel, and veterans.

I am worried for the future of our military though. As I posted before, Obama is steadily destroying morale in our military, discouraging enlistment by the kind of soldiers they used to attract.

Because of Clintonized/feminized/Obama-ized policies, our military of the future will not have the same ethics; or the same understanding of America; or the same sense of what they (the military) are (or were) fighting for.

47 posted on 11/07/2012 11:25:41 AM PST by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson