“Therein lies a risk to us and maybe a goal for the bamster: the only way to enlist the support of the armed forces would be against a seceeding state, they could and would never be engaged in a fight against US citizens, but against a separatist state? Well, as you Well, as you say, Lincoln was the model for that. Just a thought.”
You’re full of crap. Our armed forces are not Nazis, nor gestapo, nor eizengruppen. Got it?
Don’t ever infer that our Marines and soldiers are Nazis.
Thank-you for standing up for those who serve the USA in the armed forces.
I didn’t mean to infer they were. Quite the opposite actually: I said that the ONLY way he could get their support would be to re-frame the fight as Fed vs state(s), not Govt vs People.
He didn't infer that the troops were NAZI, but correctly stated there is American precedent: the Civil War. Further, given some discussions I've had with members of armed forces -- in addition to my own experience -- there really is a tendency to "just follow[ing] orders."
The trial of LTC Lakin also illustrates a glaring gap in military jurisprudence: for the very authority which ordered him to Afghanistan (what his charges stemmed from) must needs be delegated via the Chain-of-Command from the President, and the President gains his authority as Commander-in-Chief from the Constitution. One cannot [legitimately] accept the authority given by the Constitution while simultaneously rejecting the requirements of that Constitution.
The above, therefore, makes me concerned that any soldier rejecting orders to fire upon American Citizens will not be given a just trial, but instead be regarded as one who disobeys orders -- regardless of the legitimacy of those orders.
Now, this is not to say that there won't be some/many who reject such orders; but rather that the military will become fractured should a succession-style (or martial-law) event happen.