What are the chances of United States Military Fighting Native Americans in up coming war?

Question

Before you answer slim to none go check out this fox news story... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html

SNIPPET:
A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Ya know MAC when you ask what will they fight us with...keep in mind there are five USAFB's within the tribes claim...I dont know how many Army bases would be in there too??? It would be very bad if they took over just one of them...

Answer 1

Remember Wounded Knee!

Answer 2

The Lakota have a point, the treaty has never been honored so they should abandon it. Problem is, what next? How do they secure their objectives? Autonomy? Eviction of all non-Lakota people? What do they want?

I think it's too early to say what will happen, because we have not heard what their objective or endgame will be. As for whether the military will engage the Lakota over backing out of the treaty, I doubt it.

I can see the same result as any person which asserts their sovereignty. They do as they please until someone with bigger guns objects. This usually doesn't require the military to intervene.

The last time something like that happened, they burned the place down and killed almost everyone inside (Waco). Please understand; to someone standing on the other side of a really big gun, it doesn't matter if it's a soldier, policeman, ATF or FBI agent, even a forest ranger. From the gun holder's perspective, it doesn't matter if the target is right or wrong, most agents for the government don't get to make those types of decisions. There are plenty of references to how the US treats dissidents, which want to evoke absolute freedom or secession. Think about how it treated it's own populace during the civil war...

Long story sort, the chances are slim. But the police may engage them. If they are unsuccessful then the military will be called in, but the police are an army in and of themselves.

Answer 3

Good question, I suppose some were unhappy about being asked to fight. But I think ww2 had a draft (though not sure), so some might of had to fight. Some might of also done it for the money and for the respect they thought they might gain from other Americans. Some may have just decided to put their differences aside and protect the country that they loved, after all even though the Europeans took over, it was their country first, and they should want to defend it even if they have to work with the 'enemy'....put differences aside for the greater good. Others maybe figured it was their duty as an American like many other people of different races did. Who knows, but they did fight, and without them the wars could have gone a totally different way. (The code talkers for example)

Answer 4

I do not see how the renouncing of the treaties would signify any independence movement.

According to international law, only nation-states can enter into treaties. By making treaties with the various native tribes, the United States government was extending recognition to those tribes as states.

Also a caveat of international law, either party can withdraw from a treaty, but only the recognized government of either state can do so. As no other state recognizes any Native American tribe as a state, there is no government of said tribes to be recognized as a legitimate government.

The federal government and several states recognize some forms of tribal sovereignty, but those tribes are not recognized as states in the field of international law. If the tribes were to be recognized by any nation-state, the current tribal governments would be recognized as the legitiment government of the tribal states. Mr. Means can not withdraw from the treaties, many of which have already be abrogated, unless he is recognized as a leader of a tribal government.

True, many American military bases are located in areas that many Native Americans claim as their territory. However, those bases are not located on tribal reservations, therefore not part of tribal lands as recognized by any American government.

I am afraid that the only thing that Mr. Means will achieve by this statement is to declare himself as a stateless person, unless one or more of the embassies his group visited extends diplomatic relations. However, recognition does not always equate to statehood; several nations recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan), but most of the international community and the United Nations does not recognize Taiwan as a nation-state, but as part of the People's Republic of China.

Answer 5

This is stupidity on the natives part. Their not going to be an indapendant country rather they like it or not. They can only go poltically about this, not violently. They cant take a base & even if its on their "land" it doesnt mean they get the property on the land. Also they have to deal with the majority of the population that are americans & want to stay were there at & not give up their US citizenship. There just barking for attention, they will not get what they seek. Even if they do by some act of spirit guides, they will have to battle the people who want to stay & be US citizens & theirs more of the white man in those states than the native americans.

Answer 6

What weapons are they gonna fight us with?? In my honest opinion, this has more to do with getting paid more stipends than anything.

Edit: Yes, I was stationed at Malmstrom 3 separate times. Do you honestly think they would be able to take over any of the 5 bases you refer to?? You do realize at Malmstrom alone there are over 1200 Security Forces, right?? NOT feasible, in ANY way. Plus, if they did attempt ANY kind of attack at 3 of those bases, which are priority "A" assets, that would be considered a form of terrorism, and pretty much condemn them all?? Please!!

Edit: As far as the legality of us taking their land? I don't see you griping about the Hawaiians? Read up on them, once. When I was living in Montana, the indians on the reservations were always the butt of jokes. By no means am I racist, and I am for helping ANYBODY that wants to better themselves. But, they seemed like they didn't. If you look at all the people that were "wronged" by the U.S. Gov., why is it the only people getting paid for it is the Indians? Every other race has overcome this, and tried to press on. Get over it already.

Answer 7

Sorry to say this, but... a conquered people have no hope of regaining what was once theirs. Neither by armed conflict or legal means. One small group of people against the most powerful military in the world hasn't got a snow ball's change in hell.

Answer 8

I don't think there is going to be a war. It would stupid on either sides part. I don't even think that is part of the think involved in the decision to possibly secede. I do believe that it's their right to leave the US if they are willing to take on the responsibilities associated with being another country.

Answer 9

If we do have to put down a native rebellion I hope they no longer have special treatment under the law after the battle.

Answer 10

They are just looking for more money. Their reservations are too far off the beaten path for a profitable casino.