[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 28 October 2009 - 10:45 AM, said:

Good points. But I think it is a soldiers duty to question apparently bad orders, not just mindlessly follow orders that definately contradict their oath to uphold the constitution. Although I guess if the President declares state of emergency and martial law, our Constitutional rights are out the window and then we are just screwed.

Hopefully the crazy ideas of doom are just that crazy ideas... But if things get all screwed up in the world and some of these conspiracies turn out to be true then we need citizens, to stand up and fight it, soldier or not. We would want as many soldiers as possible to stand down and even fight for the citizens would'nt we?

I;'d like them all to be fully aware of the Constitution and what it means to honor it, that is all.

But it ISN'T a soldiers duty to do any such thing. It is OUR duty to do it for them. It is the soldiers duty to follow the orders.

When we allow soldiers to make their own calls we end up with bigger messes. Say we have a religious nut who says he has a dirty bomb. A home grown religious nut. The President orders troops into the area to remove citizens. As this is going on, some citizens decide that they are going to fire on our soldiers and exercise their rights to resist. Now, in this scene, the general public HAS NOT been told of the dirty nuclear bomb to prevent panic. Nor have the soldiers. They have only been told, go house to house, remove the people, seize weapons of any resistance groups.

At this point, you would have some of these soldiers NOT defend the innocent? NOT follow the orders to save the American citizens in danger?

So what is the soldier to do? Read the Constitution and proclaim that the current orders are against it? Remember, the soldier doesn't know all that is going on.

Nibs

[Corp]

Rock Slinger, on 28 October 2009 - 10:30 AM, said:

They definately don't need this second oath. They just need to keep their original oath to it's word. Oath Keepers! Not Oath Breakers. I think the idea is to make enlisted people fully aware that their oath includes upholding the Constitution and what that really means and live by it. foreign and domestic enemies... To think for themselves and realize there is potential for future bad orders to be part of a sinister plan to take away citizen rights and power. To take a stand if this happens and, following the protocol set-up for this situation, not break the Constitution.

I understand the kooky aspect to this. I would guess that 80% of Americans thought those that stood up to the English government were kooks back in the day. Were they kooks or heroes?

Ok so then what's the point of this little group? If it's nothing more than upholding the oath they took when they joined the military then this is completely pointless. By definiation all military personnel are oath keepers. I'm not seeing any difference between someone who is a member of this group and someone who is not. From what I've been told by soldiers the idea of refusing to follow an illegal order and reporting abuses of power are regularly drilling into them.


Oh and given more than 20% of Americans favored the Revolution don't think the numbers add up. However since you asked given that the Boston Tea Party resulted from a lowering of taxes yes they were kooks

This post has been edited by Corp: 28 October 2009 - 05:02 PM

[Rock Slinger]

Corp, on 28 October 2009 - 01:01 PM, said:

Ok so then what's the point of this little group? If it's nothing more than upholding the oath they took when they joined the military then this is completely pointless. By definiation all military personnel are oath keepers. I'm not seeing any difference between someone who is a member of this group and someone who is not. From what I've been told by soldiers the idea of refusing to follow an illegal order and reporting abuses of power are regularly drilling into them.


Oh and given more than 20% of Americans favored the Revolution don't think the numbers add up. However since you asked given that the Boston Tea Party resulted from a lowering of taxes yes they were kooks

Certainly most favored the Revolution but only 3% fought for it. Favoring it is one thing, believing it is worthy of giving up a comfortable life to rebel against your own government would have been seen as kooky by many anyway. And the taxes on tea were a complaint but I believe the less written history is that it was about the use of english currency at interest that may have been a more important reason. At least that is what I gathered from zeitgeistmovie.com. Not that that is the most reliable source perhaps...

If they laid their lives and fortunes on the line for a tea tax then yes, they were kooks considering what we pay for taxes today.

[Rock Slinger]

Here is the quote from zeitgeistmovie.com about the reason for the Revolutionary war. BTW, that movie is a great way to start to be paranoid about a New World Order.

1775. The American revolutionary war began as the American colonies sought to the detach from England and its oppressive monarchy. Though many reasons are sided for the revolution, one in particular sticks out as the prime cause that King George III of England outlawed the interest-free independent currency the colonies were producing and using for themselves. In turn forcing them to borrow money from the Central Bank of England, at interest, he immediately put the colonies in the debt. And as Benjamin Franklin later wrote:

“The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution”
-Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

In 1783 America won its independence from England. However, its battle against the Central Bank concept and the corrupt, greed filled men associated with it had just begun.

[Corp]

Yeah I find that rather questionable. Based off the university courses I've taken (looking at both view points) the Revolution was really a debate about representation. The British were deep in debt following the Seven Year war so they decided it was time for the colonies to start pulling their weight. So in came the taxes, just like the ones every other British citizen had to pay. However the Americans objected to this since they didn't have anyone in Parilament, and thus their views were not taken into account. The British countered this by saying that MPs didn't just represent people in their riding, but all British and thus Americans did have a voice in Parilament. Throw in new British rules that said massive take overs of Indian land was a bad thing and pretty soon the two sides of the debate started shooting at each other. Of course all things considered the Revolution might have been a good thing for the British since it freed up a heck of a lot of money that they could use to pay off debts and build the rest of their empire.

Honestly from an outsider looking in while the British put in a lot of stupid laws and overracted at time the American colonies didn't look that repressed. But you Yanks just had to be the centre of attention

This post has been edited by Corp: 29 October 2009 - 12:54 PM

[Rock Slinger]

Corp, on 29 October 2009 - 08:54 AM, said:

Yeah I find that rather questionable. Based off the university courses I've taken (looking at both view points) the Revolution was really a debate about representation. The British were deep in debt following the Seven Year war so they decided it was time for the colonies to start pulling their weight. So in came the taxes, just like the ones every other British citizen had to pay. However the Americans objected to this since they didn't have anyone in Parilament, and thus their views were not taken into account. The British countered this by saying that MPs didn't just represent people in their riding, but all British and thus Americans did have a voice in Parilament. Throw in new British rules that said massive take overs of Indian land was a bad thing and pretty soon the two sides of the debate started shooting at each other. Of course all things considered the Revolution might have been a good thing for the British since it freed up a heck of a lot of money that they could use to pay off debts and build the rest of their empire.

Honestly from an outsider looking in while the British put in a lot of stupid laws and overracted at time the American colonies didn't look that repressed. But you Yanks just had to be the centre of attention

I learned the taxation without representation thing in 7th grade and I am sure that is one of the prime reasons. But if you watch zeitgeistmovie.com you might come away thinking that because history is written by the victors and the victors are the bankers and they don't want us to know their true history, that most generally don't know the whole truth today.

You should watch the original movie first I would think then the addendum

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

http://www.zeitgeist.../transcript.htm

This post has been edited by Rock Slinger: 29 October 2009 - 01:46 PM

[Corp]

I might watch it later, though given it was completely done by one person and that fact that it touches on a bunch of conspiracy theories over its course makes me highly doubtful of its merit as a historcial resource. Heck reading the Wiki article on it the film claims the banks brought the US into WW2. I had no clue US banks has so much control over Japan.
Needless to say the banks at the time of the American Revolution had no where near the power and influence they have today. To claim that the Bank of England could control the actions of the king is complete fancy and ignores the mindset of the time. Bankers did not start the Revolution nor were they winners in any shape or form. It just sounds like someone is twisting history around in order to fit it into their worldview.

However this thread isn't about the American Revolution and its causes, it's about a group of soldiers who are promising not to break the oath every soldier took when they enlisted. Or something like that. I still don't see their point.

[Rock Slinger]

Corp, on 29 October 2009 - 12:09 PM, said:

I might watch it later, though given it was completely done by one person and that fact that it touches on a bunch of conspiracy theories over its course makes me highly doubtful of its merit as a historcial resource. Heck reading the Wiki article on it the film claims the banks brought the US into WW2. I had no clue US banks has so much control over Japan.
Needless to say the banks at the time of the American Revolution had no where near the power and influence they have today. To claim that the Bank of England could control the actions of the king is complete fancy and ignores the mindset of the time. Bankers did not start the Revolution nor were they winners in any shape or form. It just sounds like someone is twisting history around in order to fit it into their worldview.

However this thread isn't about the American Revolution and its causes, it's about a group of soldiers who are promising not to break the oath every soldier took when they enlisted. Or something like that. I still don't see their point.

Benjamin Franklin could have been wrong when he said the quote above but he was certainly someone who would have known. I said that bankers were the victors and I did not clarify this but I wasn't referring to the Revolutionary War but the eventual winners of power, control and influence over America. That took another 140 years or so to accomplish this... After you get a chance to watch the movie you'll have a much better understanding why so many people are afraid of the future in America. It's certainly not because a bunch of hillbillys that can't stand the thought of a black president are all riled up.

Back to the topic. I don't know what else I can really add but another simple statement that goes back to the why oath keepers have a point.:

Most GI's, police, etc that take an oath to the constitution have never seen zeitgeistmovie, are unaware of the possibility that what is presents could be the truth, and that we in America could be in for extremely rough times as the world evens itself out at our expense. As most are unaware, they could easily think that they are doing the best thing for the citizens by following unconstitutional orders while being oblivious of our leaders end game.


I know it sounds all doomy and gloomy and it likely will not go down this badly but many believe there is a small chance it will. AND, if it does head in that direction, you want our armed forces and police COMPLETELY aware of their oath and what it should have meant when they pledged it. And they should be aware of the New World Order and what their own role should be. With us, or against us.

This post has been edited by Rock Slinger: 29 October 2009 - 10:56 PM

[aquatus1]

Rock Slinger, on 28 October 2009 - 05:45 PM, said:

Good points. But I think it is a soldiers duty to question apparently bad orders, not just mindlessly follow orders that definately contradict their oath to uphold the constitution.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. It is not a soldier's duty to question orders (hence the rhyme "Ours is not to question why; Ours is but to do or die."). It is an officer's duty to question orders.

Quote

Although I guess if the President declares state of emergency and martial law, our Constitutional rights are out the window and then we are just screwed.

More accurately, by the time martial law gets declared anywhere, you are already so screwed by whatever happened that you are happy to see the military coming in. Getting screwed comes before the martial law. The martial law is there until things are un-screwed.

Quote

Hopefully the crazy ideas of doom are just that crazy ideas... But if things get all screwed up in the world and some of these conspiracies turn out to be true then we need citizens, to stand up and fight it, soldier or not. We would want as many soldiers as possible to stand down and even fight for the citizens would'nt we?

Yep. And the citizens that you would want are the ones who can think through the implications of taking oaths and defending a constitutional republic.

Quote

I;'d like them all to be fully aware of the Constitution and what it means to honor it, that is all.

I find that many people are willing to claim that they are fully aware of the Constitution, but when all is said and done, they really only have a peripheral, surface understanding of it.

[Corp]

Rock Slinger, on 29 October 2009 - 06:40 PM, said:

Most GI's, police, etc that take an oath to the constitution have never seen zeitgeistmovie, are unaware of the possibility that what is presents could be the truth, and that we in America could be in for extremely rough times as the world evens itself out at our expense. As most are unaware, they could easily think that they are doing the best thing for the citizens by following unconstitutional orders while being oblivious of our leaders end game.


I know it sounds all doomy and gloomy and it likely will not go down this badly but many believe there is a small chance it will. AND, if it does head in that direction, you want our armed forces and police COMPLETELY aware of their oath and what it should have meant when they pledged it. And they should be aware of the New World Order and what their own role should be. With us, or against us.

Ok they're basing this whole 'second oath' on a single conspiracy movie? That's like saying someone might be unaware of the possibility of time travel if they haven't seen the Bill & Ted movies. Many soldiers have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and I'm sure such experiences have opened their eyes about how crappy a country can get when its government goes nuts. Plus while I'm sure that not every soldier has read the Constitution through, backwards, and upside down I'm sure they have an idea of what is and isn't an illegal order. I mean they all have families, I doubt they'll think rounding up random groups of people is just fine and dandy. And what "end game" are you refering too? Even though our leaders are a bunch of corrupt losers they're not a bunch of Bond villains. Don't think many are clever enough to be.

It does sound doom and gloom because, well, it is. Soldiers are just like you and me, they've gone through school, they have families, and they come from a wide background. If you're not going to help the government create a dictatorship why would a soldier? And I don't think we need to bother with the New World Order, which I don't believe exists. Don't think you can base a conspiracy on another conspiracy. Just gets confusing.

[Rock Slinger]

Corp, on 30 October 2009 - 09:38 AM, said:

Ok they're basing this whole 'second oath' on a single conspiracy movie? That's like saying someone might be unaware of the possibility of time travel if they haven't seen the Bill & Ted movies. Many soldiers have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and I'm sure such experiences have opened their eyes about how crappy a country can get when its government goes nuts. Plus while I'm sure that not every soldier has read the Constitution through, backwards, and upside down I'm sure they have an idea of what is and isn't an illegal order. I mean they all have families, I doubt they'll think rounding up random groups of people is just fine and dandy. And what "end game" are you refering too? Even though our leaders are a bunch of corrupt losers they're not a bunch of Bond villains. Don't think many are clever enough to be.

It does sound doom and gloom because, well, it is. Soldiers are just like you and me, they've gone through school, they have families, and they come from a wide background. If you're not going to help the government create a dictatorship why would a soldier? And I don't think we need to bother with the New World Order, which I don't believe exists. Don't think you can base a conspiracy on another conspiracy. Just gets confusing.

Good points again. I refrenced the zeitgeistmovie to help you understand the possible need for such a group, the Oath Keepers never mention it. It is the information in the movie that I am referring to really and no that is not the only source for that information. Some of it is just plain historical fact that is not widely acknowledged, not a conspiracy at all. Much of the film is conspiracy theory though, no doubt.

Also, these are my mistakes not Oath Keepers. The group actually is ex-military and ex-police which makes far more sense. Although I still would like enlisted to understand this stuff.

So I am sorry I should have been more acurate of what I was presenting. Someday I will learn to slow down get it right the first time

[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 30 October 2009 - 08:44 AM, said:

Good points again. I refrenced the zeitgeistmovie to help you understand the possible need for such a group, the Oath Keepers never mention it. It is the information in the movie that I am referring to really and no that is not the only source for that information. Some of it is just plain historical fact that is not widely acknowledged, not a conspiracy at all. Much of the film is conspiracy theory though, no doubt.

Also, these are my mistakes not Oath Keepers. The group actually is ex-military and ex-police which makes far more sense. Although I still would like enlisted to understand this stuff.

So I am sorry I should have been more acurate of what I was presenting. Someday I will learn to slow down get it right the first time

Research is always great. Here is an older thread but it has great information - More research


I checked into the Oath Keepers. My opinion hasn't changed.

It's ridiculous. No soldier should be anywhere near it.

US citizens not serving can take the "oath" all they want.

Nibs

[Corp]

Ok now see that makes more sense. If it's ex-soldiers saying that they will remember the oath they took even though they're no longer in the military then that's ok. Still strikes me as a bit odd but at least the active soldiers aren't getting mixed into this.

[Rock Slinger]

HerNibs, on 30 October 2009 - 10:48 AM, said:

Research is always great. Here is an older thread but it has great information - More research


I checked into the Oath Keepers. My opinion hasn't changed.

It's ridiculous. No soldier should be anywhere near it.

US citizens not serving can take the "oath" all they want.

Nibs

Thanks Nibs, I recall that thread as being the one that brought me to UM in the first place after watching zeitgeistmovie.com I wanted to try and debunk it. Without reading it all again I recall most of the thread is focused on discrediting a bunch of facts in regards to the reliegion section but don't recall it having much to say about the origins of the FED and even the 911 and other parts. I understand the argument that if errors are found than the whole thing is then in doubt and that is fine but I am not sure the movie doesn't stil present plausible truth anyway. Not that I am convinced of its content either. In other words I still think it is a worthy watch if you want to understand why there are so many more conspiracy theorists these days. I believe this movie spawned a lot of us.

Hey, are you OK with Ex-soldiers taking the oath?

[HerNibs]

Rock Slinger, on 30 October 2009 - 02:28 PM, said:

Thanks Nibs, I recall that thread as being the one that brought me to UM in the first place after watching zeitgeistmovie.com I wanted to try and debunk it. Without reading it all again I recall most of the thread is focused on discrediting a bunch of facts in regards to the reliegion section but don't recall it having much to say about the origins of the FED and even the 911 and other parts. I understand the argument that if errors are found than the whole thing is then in doubt and that is fine but I am not sure the movie doesn't stil present plausible truth anyway. Not that I am convinced of its content either. In other words I still think it is a worthy watch if you want to understand why there are so many more conspiracy theorists these days. I believe this movie spawned a lot of us.

Hey, are you OK with Ex-soldiers taking the oath?

Yup. Don't care what an ex-soldier does. He can take any oath he wants. It's current serving that need to stay away from it.

Nibs