Coup de etat, U.S. military

[ygmir]

ITYM "the right circumstances."

Let's get some global fucking government already. Universal Human Rights, globally standard and enforced environmental regulation and international law enforcement with teeth. What's wrong with that.

I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for Peter Wiggin.

disappointing...........

[Trishntek]

Trish, have you read the ideas of Hegel? http://rense.com/general77/sele.htm

No. But I have long suspicioned that the Knights Templar, Free Masons and other secret societies have continued to influence world leaders through the generations. The manipulations of language to get their way is more evident today than ever before. We also must pay close attention to what is NOT said by those in authority (i.e. ,,,,"you can keep your current Doctor,,,," without saying what would happen if you don't like your current doctor).

[Corwin]

You know, this reminds me of the "world is going to end 2012 THATS A FACT" people.

Please, for the love of god, put your money where your mouth is and wager money on any of these ridiculous doomsayings.

If anyone's interested I'm willing to bet my entire life's earnings until retirement against any prophecies this guy makes.

[Ranger Genius]

Trish, have you read the ideas of Hegel? http://rense.com/general77/sele.htm

Am I The Only One Who finds This Article Incoherent? What The Fuck Is This Guy's Point? Can Someone Pick Out The Sentence (Or Even Paragraph) That Contains The Argument He's Trying To Prove?

And Why The Hell Is My Phone Capitalizing Every Word?

ETA: Guess the screen protector was confusing the touch screen into thinking I was pressing the shift key. Strange.

[Ugly Dougly]

I see as entertainment, of no more import than a monkey learning silly tricks.

[Trishntek]

You know, this reminds me of the "world is going to end 2012 THATS A FACT" people.

Please, for the love of god, put your money where your mouth is and wager money on any of these ridiculous doomsayings.

If anyone's interested I'm willing to bet my entire life's earnings until retirement against any prophecies this guy makes.

Well I have put my money out of the 401k/IRA circuit and into off the grid investments. As far as the guy in the article, if someone tried to "inspect" my house for whatever reason, I would be some kinda pissed off about it. Conspiracy theories are simply that,,,, theories based upon hypothetical scenarios.

Until I toured the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas and actually stood behind the suspect picket fence on the "grassy knoll", the Oswald single shooter story was credible. Now I am convinced there were indeed at least three assassins that day.

But mark my words, there is a movement toward global governance that has the ear of the shakers and movers in finance, energy and politics. Redistribution of wealth, inhibition of industry and lowering standards of living are openly discussed by those influencing and advising those in authority.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Gl ... ance_1.htm

The greatest difference in philosophies is group rights versus individual rights. If we have no problem being lumped together in mediocrity for the good of all, then there is no big deal. If we seek individuality and the liberty of self-expression and responsibilities, then it is a big deal. Now is the time to choose. Soon, the choice will no longer exist IMHO.

Of course, I would like to see my grandchildren able to make choices of self-determination that most of us have.

[Corwin]

A high profile shady assassination has cause for question. However what you're suggesting makes no sense. There already is global governance, its called the rich elite and they have no reason to distribute wealth. Do you guys even consider the logic or the practicality of any of these theories? Who would benefit from wealth redistribution? You think poor people have a secret coalition that's going to take over the world maybe?

[Trishntek]

A high profile shady assassination has cause for question. However what you're suggesting makes no sense. There already is global governance, its called the rich elite and they have no reason to distribute wealth. Do you guys even consider the logic or the practicality of any of these theories? Who would benefit from wealth redistribution? You think poor people have a secret coalition that's going to take over the world maybe?

And why, are gubmints throwing away TRILLIONS (millions of millions) not a problem? I realize the paltry sum stolen from my coffers is meager in comparison, but my hard-earned money is among those trillions of dollars. The "rich" and "wealthy" have problems we cannot even imagine.

I work and converse regularly with people you would consider "rich". They employ about a dozen people personally and offer support to $Billion industries via their high-level educations and unique licenses and qualifications. Many of them invest in smaller service-oriented L.L.C.s which make all our lives a little better.

They regularly work 12-15 hours a day and often six days a week. They involve entire families of small businesses in collective efforts to take their services to places of disastrous circumstance across the globe. They go to offer their professional services to serve populations of great need and little resource pro bono.

These individuals do all these things in an environment which involves changing rules. Fee schedules, regulations and laws shift and change constantly. They take risks financially, professionally and responsibly. Their industry is held in high esteem while being subjected to third party influence and intimidation. It is one of the most regulated industries today.

The poor don't need the mosquito nets handed out to them; they need to learn how to make their own nets,,,, and,,,,, gassssspppppp sell them for profit. They don't need shipments of grain, they need to grow their own and get over the cow worship and have some steak.

The idea that the "rich" just eat bon-bons and lay on the beach is exactly what the progressive party wants you to believe.

[Ranger Genius]

Wow, I'm so inspired now that I'll just go right out and get myself an Ivy League education, get a few million in start-up capital from my dad, and pull myself up by my own bootstraps too! Thanks so much!

[can't sit still]

Trish, I posted that article knowing that you would do follow-up. I forgot the rest of the group. Otherwise, I would have posted something more focused. It wasn't at all focused.
"Georg William Friedrich Hegel was a German theologian and philosopher who formed a theory of history to help dispute the American principles for individual freedom based in natural law"
The essence of the Hegelian dialectic is that ALL production should be directed to the state. ALL individual wants and desires should be subordinated to the needs / demands of the state. The state should be all-controlling.

You can see where the American ideals of personal liberty are in direct confrontation to the ideals of Hegel. BUT, they're very attractive to GOV.

If you can wade through it, here is a long bit on Hegel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilh ... rich_Hegel
Most of his stuff is WAY out there.

There's always some new shithead that comes along and thinks that the Hegelian dialectic is a great idea.
"However, since the fall of the USSR, a new wave of Hegel scholarship arose in the West, without the preconceptions of the prior schools of thought"
Yep, ignore history.
"Criticism of Hegel has been widespread in the 19th and the 20th centuries; "
You can bet on that.
"Hegel's contemporary Schopenhauer was particularly critical, and wrote of Hegel's philosophy as "a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking"
That's why GOV loves it.
"Isaiah Berlin listed Hegel as one of the six architects of modern authoritarianism who undermined liberal democracy"
Can't argue with that.

"most difficult philosopher to understand. This is partly because Hegel tried to develop a new form of thinking and logic, which he called "speculative reason"
All by himself, he tried to develop a new logic. Most think that he was bonkers.

BUT, GOV likes his idea of everything being controlled by the state. Hegel wasn't big on the family either.
American ideals are contradictory to the Hegelian dialectic. America was extremely successful as a country and as a concept. Universal suffrage brought us slowly to Hegelian socialism. No matter how many times communitarianism is shown to be a failure, someone is always ready to shove it down the throat of another society,,, as a supposed improvement.
Democracy with universal suffrage is creeping socialism. Both Hegel and Marx completely ignored basic human drives. Look at how successful the U.S.S.R. was once they removed all incentive and motivation. That doesn't stop ivory-tower shitheads from dragging socialism back up out of the scrapheap.

If y'all want to argue the relative merits of Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, et all, I suggest that you go to the philosphy forum;
http://www.philosophyforum.com/
I just never had the interest.

[can't sit still]

Wow, I'm so inspired now that I'll just go right out and get myself an Ivy League education!

I don't think that Harvard has a "special ed" department

[Corwin]

Trish...WTF are you talking about?

I'll restate my question.

Who would both benefit from a redistribution of wealth and have the power to make it happen?

[ygmir]

I'd like to hear your answer, Corwin......
(before, I walk the pattern)

[Trishntek]

Trish...WTF are you talking about?

I'll restate my question.

Who would both benefit from a redistribution of wealth and have the power to make it happen?

In order to refrain from cross posting, I'll simply suggest you do a search on 2 guys.
1. Maurice Strong
2. Richard Sendor

[Sail Man]

That was rude.

Edited to add CSS's signature line -
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

Spot on.

[can't sit still]

U.S. military officers have sworn to uphold the constitution. Enlisted personnel have sworn to obey officers. Much of what the grunts do is against the "Uniform code of military justice"
Much of what GOV does is against the constitution. During and after Viet-Nam, the military became aware that they were supposed to burn up supplies and kill lots of enemies. Winni8ng was not in the playbook. The military is having morale, suicide and poverty problems.
Perry thinks that they may have had enough;
http://www.rense.com/general91/axed.htm

[bluesbob]

Both the former head of the war college and the head of military intelligence have come out and said that 9/11 was a fraud.

Citations, and in what context? I don't believe ANYONE with half a brain has come out and said the events of 9/11 were a fraud. Our reaction in Iraq was a major fraud. But four airliners hijacked by Al-Queda was NOT a fraud. Go eff yourself if you believe that "we blew the towers up ourselves" bullshit.

[bx1]

Ummm... This would never happen in the U.S. (unless some really drastic policy changes took place in addition to some crazy conspiracy). *ALL* military members don't just swear to uphold the Constitution but to obey the orders of the President of the United States. The military is commanded by a civilian government and the military's purpose is to not enforce the Constitution as it sees fit. It is the multiple levels of our government with many "checks and balances" that does that. Also: it is the court which decides what is Constitutional and what is not. Not the military.

-Current military member.

[can't sit still]

bx1, a big part of our current problems stem from fact that the supreme court is the final arbiter. This is the one major flaw we inherited from our founding fathers. The supreme court routinely interprets everything in the favor of the federal GOV. It is part of the federal GOV. Evidently, the supreme court has never heard of the 10th amendment.

There is a growing movement towards nullification on the part of the states. They don't like federal law shoved down their throats when the 10th amendment forbids it. 26 states want to do their own immigration enforcement. Pot is a big problem. The health bill was a real pisser for the states. The FEDs don't have any jurisdiction. The supreme court says that they do.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/08 ... ederalism/
This thread is premature. Things will get a whole lot worse before any intervention would be considered by the military. Things are guaranteed to get a whole lot worse. Eventually, the military will be called on for internal security. Eventually, they will have to start killing Americans.This will all come to pass. THEN, we will see where it all leads.
I was going to let the thread lie dormant until I saw the article about Perry. Is GOV worried about a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[geekster]

Most people in the military (contrary to popular belief) just aren't that damned political. I believe something like 5% of the military even cast ballots. Seriously.

"The Military" is a huge organization and at practically every level requires a huge number of civilians to make it run.

Now think for a moment how one might organize such a coup. What is going to be done? Do you capture the President? Then the Vice President is in charge ... then the Speaker, then the Secretary of State, then the Chief Justice, etc. How exactly would one go about forcing a bunch of civilians to operate the halls of government? Order them to? Not likely.

What is more likely is that popular rebellion would build against a Washington run amok until it flashed into violence, the President would order the military to put it down, and the military would refuse and allow things to sort themselves out.

On other words, coup is a lot less likely in this country than the people rising up and burning down the Capitol building with the military standing idly by doing nothing about it.

I can see people refusing to obey government orders and the government coming to a halt if they go too far down this road of idiocy they are on. More like people just deciding to stay home and not go to work. That would bring government to its knees. Or mass resignations in vital departments. It would be more likely the chiefs of staff would resign and try to rally the people as civilians than do anything wearing the uniform.

Sort of like this guy.

[youtube][/youtube]

[can't sit still]

Geekster, after all this is America. I don't expect anything so crass as tanks on Pennsylvania ave. BUT, the military is being destroyed to keep the military-industrial-banking powers quite rich. Our military is exhausted. Shit head obama says that he's pulling out the troops in Iraq. Oh yeah he still needs 50,000 of them there to insure the CIA cash crops don't get burned.
http://www.truth-out.org/iraq-part-two- ... -dawn61955

Now, we're stirring things up with China.
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08 ... ar-part-i/
That could be suicidal. They have WAY different attitudes than the West.
We don't actually win wars anyway.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... leId=20707
Next, there is a push to light up Iran. The U.S. does NOT have an unlimited war machine. Iran is NOT a good bet;
http://www.straight.com/article-336907/ ... r-war-iran
Pakistan seems to be on the "hit list" also;
http://www.infowars.com/former-pakistan ... -imminent/
The military has it's own self-interests. I doubt that they will risk a total collapse from over-deployment. The military pays the highest cost for wars. I'm sure that they're aware of the futility of trying to maintain an empire.

No, I don't believe that we'll stand behind Taiwan. Unless we we're looking for an excuse anyway. It's all so stupid. The military knows that we can't really win a war with China. If it was conventional, we would run out of money and fuel. If it were nuke, we would have very serious other problems. The military could pressure our shithead-in-chief to change his mind.

[geekster]

The size of the US military is something like 1/4 the size it was in the 1980's.

Clinton kept cutting and cutting and cutting.

There are more Chinese than we have bullets.

[can't sit still]

The military may be smaller,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so why does their budget keep going up?

[can't sit still]

This is a VERY interesting video that mentions a coup, of sorts against the U.S. GOV many years ago.

[CapSmashy]

A high profile shady assassination has cause for question. However what you're suggesting makes no sense. There already is global governance, its called the rich elite and they have no reason to distribute wealth. Do you guys even consider the logic or the practicality of any of these theories? Who would benefit from wealth redistribution? You think poor people have a secret coalition that's going to take over the world maybe?

And why, are gubmints throwing away TRILLIONS (millions of millions) not a problem? I realize the paltry sum stolen from my coffers is meager in comparison, but my hard-earned money is among those trillions of dollars. The "rich" and "wealthy" have problems we cannot even imagine.

I work and converse regularly with people you would consider "rich". They employ about a dozen people personally and offer support to $Billion industries via their high-level educations and unique licenses and qualifications. Many of them invest in smaller service-oriented L.L.C.s which make all our lives a little better.

They regularly work 12-15 hours a day and often six days a week. They involve entire families of small businesses in collective efforts to take their services to places of disastrous circumstance across the globe. They go to offer their professional services to serve populations of great need and little resource pro bono.

These individuals do all these things in an environment which involves changing rules. Fee schedules, regulations and laws shift and change constantly. They take risks financially, professionally and responsibly. Their industry is held in high esteem while being subjected to third party influence and intimidation. It is one of the most regulated industries today.

The poor don't need the mosquito nets handed out to them; they need to learn how to make their own nets,,,, and,,,,, gassssspppppp sell them for profit. They don't need shipments of grain, they need to grow their own and get over the cow worship and have some steak.

The idea that the "rich" just eat bon-bons and lay on the beach is exactly what the progressive party wants you to believe.

You're missing the mark here.

The "rich" you are referring to work for the "rich" that Corwin is referring to.

[geekster]

The military may be smaller,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so why does their budget keep going up?

It doesn't in real dollars. That is another popular myth spread by people who believe it does but don't bother checking their facts. It has certainly gone up since 9/11 but it has been pretty constant at about $400 billion in 2005 dollars since 1950. Also the military is currently on a huge construction phase spending a lot of money on barracks, housing, and other quality of life items, not weapons systems. Several weapons systems have been scaled back recently.

Military spending as percentage of GDP:



Spending in constant 2007 dollars showing defense compared to social programs:



Per-capita defense spending:

[can't sit still]

Geekster, your second graph looks suspicious. I did use the word budget and NOT cost, so it's correct from 1 point of view.
"Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]"
It all comes out of our pockets.
The wars are not included in the defense budget. They're a separate item.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States
Rumsfeld said that the Pentagon can't account for $ 2.3 trillion. How can that much go missing with a budget of a half trillion?

[geekster]

In real dollars you need to budget more just to keep pace with inflation. Granted, there hasn't been much the past few years and we have seen some real growth from 2001 to 2007 but it is currently on the way back down. The point being that in real dollars, spending has been pretty flat since the 1950's.

What do you find "suspicious" about the second graph? It also reflects about the same result as that from another source in constant 2005 dollars. Two sources, same general picture. Social spending and entitlement programs account for about 50% of the US budget.


Per-capita Defense Spending 1962-2015 (inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars)




Defense Spending 1962-2015 (inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars)


This second graph is already obsolete and does not reflect recent reductions in programs.

Note only the light green is "defense department", not the entire graph.

[can't sit still]

Geekster, though I'm loathe to use a word that most people misunderstand, I must in this case. This whole debate is a moot point [endlessly discussable and VERY important].
The second graph seems to peak about $ 600 billion. The Wiki article points to a total spending of up to $ 1 trillion.
Your third graph in the second group seems to point at $ 1 trillion. I realize that they are inflation adjusted. The CPI is BS anyway.
A better metric is the loss of purchasing power.
My contention is that GOV is a lying pack of thieving bastards. Why should we believe anything they say about the military and budget?
We hear that the deficit climbed say $ 60 billion in the month. But, if you look at the total debt, it has climbed $ 100 billion or some other number FAR higher. David Walker, the Comptroller-General said for years that he couldn't possibly certify that the accounting of the budget was accurate or honest.
I don't believe that we have enough honest information to say for sure what the Offense dept. is spending.

[Sail Man]

Ummm... This would never happen in the U.S. (unless some really drastic policy changes took place in addition to some crazy conspiracy). *ALL* military members don't just swear to uphold the Constitution but to obey the orders of the President of the United States. The military is commanded by a civilian government and the military's purpose is to not enforce the Constitution as it sees fit. It is the multiple levels of our government with many "checks and balances" that does that. Also: it is the court which decides what is Constitutional and what is not. Not the military.

-Current military member.

Good, then you do remember that the oath includes "all enemy's both foreign and domestic?