Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Read it, and think.


http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/ ... -and-think

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Snip.....

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

Whatever, that's a lot of big tough talk for someone who doesn't know the bad ass Third Right that frequent the Metal Sludge boards.

Heed my warning marines, VinnieKulick and co. will...

FUCK!

YOU!

UP!1111

It's too bad they're not in Iraq supporting the troops.. I'm sure they would be owning all those insurgents there, too.

Yeah, send OUR terrorists over there.

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

This part is scary as hell. Sure puts events like the Tienanmen Square Massacre into perspective.

YourMomma wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:It's too bad they're not in Iraq supporting the troops.. I'm sure they would be owning all those insurgents there, too.

We're still in Iraq?

Shouldn't you be happy about that? Yeah, it takes a little while to fix that fuck-up. Yes, before you spill your seed in your pants, I know that most democrats also voted for the invasion, and they share the blame. However, you can't argue that the invasion wasn't Bush's baby. Or can you?

YourMomma wrote:One of the few good decisions the man has made thus far. Unfortunate for those who voted for him.

What about those who didn't vote for him? Is it unfortunate for them as well? I wonder how that works - do only people who vote for somebody get to experience the pros and cons, while the rest of the country lives in some sort of vacuum?

YourMomma wrote:

tin00can wrote:


What about those who didn't vote for him?

What is unfortunate for the left many times turns out to be fortunate for the country. Not cutting and running is a prime example.

Oh sure, the Iraq War has been real fortunate for us. High oil prices, further Middle East instability, further no-confidence toward our government, and billions of tax payer dollars squandered.

Oh yeah, and 4,379 American lives lost. I thank my lucky stars...

tin00can wrote:


Shouldn't you be happy about that? Yeah, it takes a little while to fix that fuck-up.

That's bullshit. How the hell is Obama trying to fix it when he has only reduced troop levels from 140K to 110K and increased the defense budget to $708.2 billion, the largest since WWII (adjusted for inflation) and larger than anything during the Bush years? He ran on a platform of ending that war and he isn't even close to doing so. Ending the Iraq War was the easiest thing for him to do, so you can leave that "boo-hoo I inherited it" excuse at the door. He has disappointed a hell of a lot of anti-war people, myself included. Hope and change? What a bunch a babbling bullshit.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:That's bullshit. How the hell is Obama trying to fix it when he has only reduced troop levels from 140K to 110K and increased the defense budget to $708.2 billion, the largest since WWII (adjusted for inflation) and larger than anything during the Bush years? He ran on a platform of ending that war and he isn't even close to doing so. Ending the Iraq War was the easiest thing for him to do, so you can leave that "boo-hoo I inherited it" excuse at the door. He has disappointed a hell of a lot of anti-war people, myself included. Hope and change? What a bunch a babbling bullshit.

He didn't run on a campaign of withdrawing from Iraq immediately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... from-iraq/

Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to anti-war audiences and " about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security.

According to politifact he is still on schedule with his Iraq promises, and they track this stuff pretty closely:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ects/iraq/

If you're disappointed, then you weren't paying attention to what he was saying during the campaign.



EDIT: This one is even more current:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... stan-and-/

Not only is the plan to remove combat troops on schedule, it's actually ahead of schedule, U.S. Gen. Ray Odierno said at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22, 2010.

"The original plan had us to be at about 115,000 today, and right now we're at 96(,000)," Odierno said. "So we're about 20,000 ahead of where we thought we would be when we originally built the plan, and that's based on what we've seen and what we think we need."

[snip]

When Romney said Obama had changed positions from his campaign because he's "left our troops in Iraq, and they're being more successful there," it presumes that Obama said in the campaign that he would immediately remove combat troops, or that he would remove them faster than he has. We don't think that's backed up in Obama's campaign statements. The repeated mantra of Obama's campaign regarding Iraq was largely that he would initiate a drawdown of combat forces in Iraq within about 16 months. The plan to remove forces by the end of August is a couple of months past that deadline, but it's awfully close. And now, Gen. Odierno says the withdrawal plan is even a little ahead of schedule. We think it's unfair to suggest that Obama's actions as president radically depart from his position during the campaign.

YourMomma wrote:Did he run on escalation in Afghanistan?

Why yes, yes he did. It's in the last link i posted above:

As a candidate, Obama promised to send "at least" two additional brigades to Afghanistan. And he repeatedly said during the campaign that Afghanistan required more troops and attention than it was receiving from the Bush administration. He said the United States "had taken our eye off the ball" by invading Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan. At one point, the Obama campaign even mocked the McCain campaign for following Obama's lead on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

Shortly after becoming president, Obama did, indeed, order that two additional brigades be sent to Afghanistan. And then on Dec. 1, 2009, Obama ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. In January 2009, the troop level in Afghanistan was 34,000. Today, it's 78,000.

Yes, Obama once said that strategic goals in Afghanistan should be "relatively modest," but to say that Obama's orders for more troops as president is a change in position from his campaign stance ignores Obama's many statements that more troops were needed and that greater focus needed to be placed on Afghanistan.

"Obama had always pledged to do more, and now he has tripled forces relative to what President Bush had in place at the end of 2008," O'Hanlon said.

KneelandBobDylan wrote:Read it, and think.


http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/ ... -and-think

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Snip.....

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

Nice threat!

Sounds like an islamo-extremist blindly defending the word of the Coran, but this one is wearing stars and stripes.

Skate4RnR wrote:Whatever, that's a lot of big tough talk for someone who doesn't know the bad ass Third Right that frequent the Metal Sludge boards.

Heed my warning marines, VinnieKulick and co. will...

FUCK!

YOU!

UP!1111

Why throw my name in it? I've never once said a word about civil war being the answer. The answer is, vote out the people you don't agree with and vote in those who will represent your feelings. That's what the system is set up to do.
And, it's Third Reich,

grishnak boss wrote:

KneelandBobDylan wrote:Read it, and think.


http://christopher-calbat.newsvine.com/ ... -and-think

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Snip.....

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

Nice threat!

Sounds like an islamo-extremist blindly defending the word of the Coran, but this one is wearing stars and stripes.

Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

ChowderheadCheerleader wrote:Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

Right, I agree.

Some of these guys are probably well intentioned, but blinded by patriotism and propaganda. Anyway, 1 of the requirements to join the army is being braindead, so no surprise on the marine's comment.

grishnak boss wrote:

ChowderheadCheerleader wrote:Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

Right, I agree.

Some of these guys are probably well intentioned, but blinded by patriotism and propaganda. Anyway, 1 of the requirements to join the army is being braindead, so no surprise on the marine's comment.

That Marine doesn't realize that such a civil war would include units of our military on both sides of the struggle. As some units obeyed orders to suppress rebellion, others would see it as their duty to suport patriotic resistance to tyranny, and defend civilians from their own fellow troops. No one can say how it would turn out, but it would be dirty and ugly.

lerxstcat wrote:

grishnak boss wrote:

ChowderheadCheerleader wrote:Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

Right, I agree.

Some of these guys are probably well intentioned, but blinded by patriotism and propaganda. Anyway, 1 of the requirements to join the army is being braindead, so no surprise on the marine's comment.

That Marine doesn't realize that such a civil war would include units of our military on both sides of the struggle. As some units obeyed orders to suppress rebellion, others would see it as their duty to suport patriotic resistance to tyranny, and defend civilians from their own fellow troops. No one can say how it would turn out, but it would be dirty and ugly.

Sounds like a Michael Bay movie waiting to happen.

ChowderheadCheerleader wrote:
Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

Restore it to what? The good old days of the Founding Fathers, when only white male landowners got the vote, women belonged to to either their father or husband and the Negroes were slaves?

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: Restore it to what? The good old days of the Founding Fathers, when only white male landowners got the vote, women belonged to to either their father or husband and the Negroes were slaves?

grishnak boss wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: Restore it to what? The good old days of the Founding Fathers, when only white male landowners got the vote, women belonged to to either their father or husband and the Negroes were slaves?

VinnieKulick wrote:

Skate4RnR wrote:Whatever, that's a lot of big tough talk for someone who doesn't know the bad ass Third Right that frequent the Metal Sludge boards.

Heed my warning marines, VinnieKulick and co. will...

FUCK!

YOU!

UP!1111

Why throw my name in it? I've never once said a word about civil war being the answer. The answer is, vote out the people you don't agree with and vote in those who will represent your feelings. That's what the system is set up to do.
And, it's Third Reich,

Now, now. I know you never said that, I was poking your ribs for fun. Also, it wasn't a typo, I always refer to neo-cons as the "Third Right" exactly because of the "Third Reich" thing.

Damn boy! You ain't right! Well, you're "on" the right but you ain't right.

ChowderheadCheerleader wrote:Somebody needs to tell this dumb ass marine the TRUTH. If there ever is a CIVIL WAR it will be a WAR TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION which HE is sworn to defend. So therefore they would STILL be civilians. Any other actions against US Citizens would be a violation of the VERY constitution he claims to defend. Fucking IDIOT, no wonder he is a marine...

@ Stupidity/insanity of thread.

Did anyone ever ask this dude who exactly is calling for this alleged "civil war"?

He sounds like a paranoid leftist. And I find it funny (sad) he didn't bother to mention actual threats to the nation like Iran and Islamic terrorists (who really are capable of making the things he wrote come true (i.e. a tatical nuke or bioweapon being detonated in a major population center, or a decapitation strike against D.C.)).

Instead went on some dumb rant about trying to prevent the government from being overthrown (which could NEVER happen), and his willingness to open fire on civilians. So if Hitler came to power in America, he would just "follow orders" to round people up in trains and cattle trucks, and wouldn't question or disobey any illegal orders? Gee, that's reassuring.

And who is the threat, "Teabaggers"? They have a militia threatening the sovereignty of the United States? OH, NO! General Glenn Beck!

And you're absolutely right! If there ever were a "civil war", it would only be to stop either some foreign power or some homegrown fascist movement who seized power by force (which could NEVER happen).

Like the FBI, CIA, ATF, SWAT, and local law enforcement etc. couldn't easily stop ANY attempt at a government overthrow (which could NEVER happen)?

The guy is nuts, and the article is lame.