Coup de etat, U.S. military

[can't sit still]

"The military is commanded by a civilian government "
I beg to differ. The military is commanded by organized crime that recently moved up the food chain.
Boris Yeltsin claimed that Russia was all controlled by the Russian "mafia". Israel seems to have the same curse.
It's hard to argue that the CIA "arm" doesn't run all the drugs. Blackwater does the dirty work that the military won't. We have snitches aplenty. Millions work in the snitch industry.
We run arms on a huge scale. Same with protection money.

[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.

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

A domestic enemy does not include a politician who's particular policy we may not agree with.

[can't sit still]

The definition of coup de etat is exactly that.
""A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder"
A domestic politico is ALWAYS the target of a coup.

[bx1]

The definition of coup de etat is exactly that.
""A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder"
A domestic politico is ALWAYS the target of a coup.

This thread was about a U.S. military coup which I am just pointing out is about as likely as the State Puft Marshmallow Man knocking on your door in exactly 10 minutes...

[can't sit still]

I got news for you. The Stay Puft man does NOT knock on doors;

[bx1]

I got news for you. The Stay Puft man does NOT knock on doors;

Yup.

[swampdog]

Plonk. You can't argue with a sick mind.

[geekster]

I believe it more likely the military would stand aside and allow the civilian process to work its way out.

I was in the military for several years. The military is NOT political. Most people in the military don't even vote. Contrary to popular belief, people in the military are not "conservative" or "liberal" but do tend to have a libertarian bent. See the "Modern Whig Party" for an example.

http://www.modernwhig.org/

[bx1]

I believe it more likely the military would stand aside and allow the civilian process to work its way out.

I was in the military for several years. The military is NOT political. Most people in the military don't even vote. Contrary to popular belief, people in the military are not "conservative" or "liberal" but do tend to have a libertarian bent. See the "Modern Whig Party" for an example.

http://www.modernwhig.org/

Very true.

[Here and there]

"Hell no - Thats not how change is accomplished in our country."

Change in our country is not doing so well. It's all been for the worse. By definition, we've become fascist.

And, of course, the best cure for fascism is - military dictatorship! Just ask some of our neighbors to the south how well that has worked out for them in the past.

Your question is a pick and mix. You compare how democracy is working in the real world, with how a military coup would work in a perfect world, where everything works just the way you want it to. The reality is that a coup would put a lot of power into the hands of a very few, who would be what they chose to be, not what you wanted them to be, and once they had that power, backed up with all of the power of a military that had thrown off a tradition of respect for civilian authority that has grown deeper over the centuries, you'd be stuck.

A name for you to spend a good, long time, thinking about, a man of action who, responding to the troubles in his own republic, took the kind of bold action you seem to want us to consider supporting: Julius Caesar. The phrase "crossing the Rubicon" used to resonate with a particular force for a good reason, back before knowing anything about history was decided to be "so last millenium" by people who are never quite so clever as they imagine themselves to be.

And that's about as much time as I feel like talking about this nonsense. Think I'll go find a nice art thread, and start putting my time here to better use.

[can't sit still]

You imply that a coup always results in a military dictatorship. So, obviously, it's not worth my wasting my time with you.
Geekster, I know that the military isn't particularly political. But, how many GIs wear a patch for seeing action at Waco?
They know very well the problems that the country faces;
"Military members and their families are using more food stamps than in previous years – redeeming them last year at nearly twice the civilian rate, according to Defense Commissary Agency figures."
http://www.military.com/news/article/mo ... tamps.html

I'm not so much concerned with the grunts. They're trying to survive in one piece without PTSD or amputations. I'm talking more about the officers. They're finding their own voice;
http://www.mo911truth.org/
When president Wahid sent out the army to quell public insurrection, they all just stood on the sidelines. He was out in a week.
I'm not talking so much about a coup as PRESSURE. As the country is bankrupted, the military will eventually face huge cuts.
Obama dissed the military pretty bad when he said that they were a bunch of whiners. He wanted them to get their own private insurance to save GOV $ 504 billion dollars in medical expenses. Imagine what the premiums would be for an infantryman in Iraq.

There is an expectation that the banks will close by next spring. There is also an expectation that GOV will cause hyperinflation;
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/09/just- ... -post.html
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/09/just- ... art-2.html

It may be very quiet in the military now, but, that will likely change.

[Ugly Dougly]

He-he... a military coup to restore representative democratic government is kind of like drinking Drano to remove something stuck between your teeth. Maybe that's not the best analogy...

[can't sit still]

Dougly, Gamel Ataturk knew that a theocracy always turns to shit. Everything gets fucked up if you only have to answer to god. He made sure that the constitution required a secular GOV. He called a convocation of all the mullahs to decide the future of the country. Then he machine-gunned all of them. The Turkish military regularly throws out any religious president that the people elect. They wait a couple of years and then turn it over to a responsible secular leader. They've done this a few times.
Politics is dirty business. There have been many examples where the military seized the ship of state and then later turned it back over to non-military leaders. They didn't want to get dirty.
Smedly Buttler made it very clear that the U.S. military is used for an economic sledgehammer. How much esprit de corps does that inspire? Tillman wasn't the only person who was/ is disgusted by the "mission".

[Ugly Dougly]

The Turkish military regularly throws out any religious president that the people elect.

I glanced around and noticed one thing: this isn't Turkey!

But if the people elect someone, whether directly or indirectly, then this is representative government. Remove their choice and install a puppet and you don't have any kind of democratic representative government. Typical result of a military coup: government by military fiat. It's a fun fantasy, but you would not want it, trust me.

[can't sit still]

I've been there a couple of times and spoken with some military. They're a very professional group. Since Turkey is about 99% Muslim, it's much more difficult to maintain a secular GOV. If the Turkish military is able to maintain a representative GOV, the U.S. military should be able to do it easily.

[can't sit still]

This is from Doug Casey;

"However, rather than democracy as we know it being swept away by a popular uprising, complete with the whole pitchforks and torches thing, I see a far more likely scenario being a military coup – though that coup would likely only take place once the streets were filled with angry citizens.

A military coup? Impossible, I can sense many of you thinking… but stick with me for just a moment longer and I’ll try to explain how it might work.

So, the tipping point event has occurred and the Democrats are seen as being at fault, either for mismanaging the country into economic ruin or for failing to properly look after national defense. Angry citizens take to the streets, and ugly confrontations are broadcast around the clock on the cable news. The National Guard is called out and people are killed, and nothing the politicians on either side say in press conferences given in undisclosed locations can mollify the angry masses.

At which point a general, called to the White House for a crisis consultation, arrests the president and the military moves in.

“Never gonna happen!â€

[can't sit still]

"Interestingly, a senior fellow of the pro-military Hoover Institute, one Thomas Sowell, wrote a piece for the National Review on the decline of American society which presented a very similar thought:

“When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.â€

[BAS]

This country needs change, but I am not at all certain a military coup is the answer. (We came close to one in the 1930s, when certain industrialists joined forces with military and ex-military types who wanted their money NOW, to attempt to install a fascist regime.)

I did hear speculation that we will probably have another economic crash before 2012, and that might cause one or both of out major parties to fragment. If this happens, hopefully the result will be we have four or five parties and not complete anarchy...

Whether or not I would support a military coup would depend quite a bit on 1) whether or not I am actually given a choice, 2) the stated objectives of the coup and how much I felt I could BELIEVE the stated objectives would be the ACTUAL objectives/outcome.

[mdmf007]

This country needs change, but I am not at all certain a military coup is the answer. (We came close to one in the 1930s, when certain industrialists joined forces with military and ex-military types who wanted their money NOW, to attempt to install a fascist regime.)

SHOULD HAVE CALLED J.G. WENTWORTH

[can't sit still]

I see that 52 % are offended by my question. Should I have phrased it differently?
Consider that the military officers are sworn to uphold the constitution. The vast majority of them are not in the military to get rich.
Consider that the U.S. constitution is a pretty damn good document for the equitable running of a country.
Consider that the members of GOV have NO use for the constitution and are getting quite rich at their jobs.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... ies-suffer

Would you be inclined to support a power-group that has sworn to uphold YOUR interests or would you be inclined to support a power-group that has proven that they have interest in themselves ONLY?

[BAS]

I'm not offended by the question, but I do question your plan. All sorts of folks join the military for all sorts of reasons. How do you know the good folks will be the ones in charge? The military took over Burma, and their constitution went out the window and Burma is in a hell of a lot worse shape than the USA.

I'm tired of these hypothetical questions and endless debates. Could someone please come up with an actual plan? I'm 47 years old and have NOT been taking good care of my health and have about $10 in my checking account. From my point of view, the best use of these meager resources is to try to get some stability in my life, get as off grid as I can, and hunker down and wait for times to improve while participating in what democracy we have left and pay my union dues.

BAS-- who quit going to "Fighting Bob Fest" for these very reasons, and they at least were more organized.

[can't sit still]

BAS, I don't have a plan. There are very good plans put forth by "social creditors" from years ago. C.H. Douglas, Kitson and Gertrude Coogan all identified the problems and solutions decades ago. The bankers are not about to let loose the reigns of power. I can echo the plans of these people but, it will do no good,,, at the moment.
Without knowing your particulars, I can't offer much advice on increasing your meager resources. I can only suggest that you find an arena where your abilities are more valuable than they are in your current situation.

As far as off-grid and hunkering down, you should take a good look at Intentional Communities http://www.ic.org/
There might be a situation that would be a "good fit" for you. Possibly, you could find stability and security.
My personal plan involved starting preparations 5 years ago. That option isn't available. Hopefully, you can find a group that will welcome your contributions.

[Box Burner]

CSS - given your Clarification of the question; yes, I would support a military coup. The problem is who is going to be in charge, what are their real intentions, and how can we tell that they are telling the truth? Our military leaders may not be in it to get rich per se, but it is easy to look back in history and see that there were many such who were interested in power. Money = power. So in such cases I see little difference. It would be easy for such a general to put himself in charge "until things get settled" and then go about cleaning house until he had no opposition. All for the good of the state.

I do believe that we have good people in the military. Some even with the right qualities to pull it off and not grab power for themselves. So the queston is how can you tell? And equally important, what do you do if the wrong one starts the ball in motion?

[can't sit still]

Box, tough question,,, getting the right people. There are hundreds of examples of military rule. Burma and North Korea stand out. I mentioned Turkey earlier. It has benefited greatly from military intervention. Cuba is an excellent example. Castro recently admitted that his vision of a socialist economy had no viability.
I believe that the military should be used as a "stopgap" measure to get rid of people in GOV who are blatantly against the general welfare but,,, somehow un-removable by the ballot box.
The corporate takeover of America has made the ballot box ineffective because; only the corporate sector has the financial means to really push a candidate. There is an old saying somewhere. "The best political system is democracy,,, tempered by assassination"


Either assassination or military removal is OK with me.
I believe that the military should be used as a "tune up tool". A big percentage of soldiers detest war and killing. That puts them in direct apposition to politicians. A smart military would come in,,, do a removal,,, and then exit, so that it doesn't get dragged in to the dirty business of politics.
I'm under no illusion that it would be a simple process.
Currently, the justice department is not prosecuting ANYBODY connected with the fraud that is destroying the country. I wouldn't complain if the military courts rounded up the most obvious offenders and tried and incarcerated them. Justice dept could argue jurisdiction but, how could they possible make a case of it?
That would be a huge kick in the ass to our current huge crop of scofflaws.

[Box Burner]

I agree with you CSS. The military should be used as a stopgap measure. However it should not be the US military. (Although at this point we have no choice). It should be the Militia.

If I am not mistaken the Federal government is not supposed to have a large standing army on US soil. Prior to the War between the states there were many militias. Both State Militias and private militias. these militias volunteered or were called up by the federal & Confederate govrnments and were natonalized. After the civil war we had State national guards. These were eventually Federalized. Ie. put under control of the federal government, therby creating a large standing federal army on US soil. when Reagan was President, he quietly advocated that the states should all create state guards (militias) that could not be called up by the Feds. Aside from a token effort to do so (so the then current state governers could get a feather in their cap) this never happened. Everything is now in place to declair martial law and use this army against the People. the only things left to do are:

1 - disarm the people
2 - remove those officers in the military who would oppose them
3 - have an excuse to declare martial law.

[can't sit still]

Well,,, on issue number 1,, they're certainly trying. All the repressive regimes of history started with firearm registration and then followed up with firearm confiscation. Blair -Holt is working hard at registration;
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
I'm hoping that Americans [besides the 3 % ers ] will just ignore it. There are a lot of Americans who know internally / intrinsically? that they're fucked if they lose their guns.
Even Gandhi lamented that the Indians didn't have guns.
The military brass is starting to get nervous about private weapons in the hands of military personnel. Tons of them are already on food stamps and the brass are going to freeze their pay at the same time that inflation is 8.5 %.
I would be the first on my block to offer sanctuary to military who deserted on conscience.
I support the military. They deserve it whether or not I agree with the actions that they carry out at the behest of our dirty rotten fucked-up politicians.

[can't sit still]

The army in Egypt does NOT want to be used for killing their countrymen. Not the same as a coup. Here is a section of a comment from an article in the Daily Bell;

"As for the military, I have had extensive discussions with former and present military officers over the last 20 years from general level down to lieutenants. It was the general opinion that in the event of widespread public unrest, and the military felt that failed government policies were likely at the root of it, that the military would create a constitutional crisis by refusing to aid the government at any level other than humanitarian.

If the government ordered the JCS to step down, they would refuse and there wouldn't be any power the POTUS would have to force it. What the mobilization of the various guard units would do was unknown. However, it was felt that the JCS would put a stop to any guard units would sought to cooperate in truly subjugating the civilian populace versus just protecting people and property. "

[Trishntek]

Just a quick search demonstrates thirty-one out of forty-four Presidents had military service of some sort in their experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... ry_service

The point needs to be made on a regular basis that the United States of America is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Democracy!

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic of States united by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know this is difficult for some of you to fathom, but democracy is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid because of the corruption, manipulation of the masses and elitism which inevitably follows. That is why they defined a citizen as a STATE citizen, not a Federal citizen.

edit to add: I don't have a birth certificate from D.C., do you?

There is plenty of corruption in the military today for sure. But while looking around for a group of people interested in defending the U.S. Constitution, it's difficult to find more than a handful on or near Capitol Hill.

[can't sit still]

This is from the Egyptian military;
"The military ruling council said it will run the country for six months"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110213/ap_ ... NtaWxpdGE-

It seems that the people trust the military more than they trust the politicians and police.

[can't sit still]

This article is a bit odd. It talks about the military-industrial powers staging a coup.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -coup.html
The thing that makes it slightly possible is that it HAS been tried before.
"in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934 Butler testified to the McCormack–Dickstein Congressional committee on these claims.[1] In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2"

The idea gets attention every now and then;
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995