reply to post by DietJoke
It is usually the historians who look back, and determine when a conflict "started." It is also a matter of perspective. To the Japanese, WW2 and
their animosity toward us began long before they took the step to bomb Pearl Harbor, but to us, that was the definitive day of our involvement.
Thanks to the Fed's habit of thinking that everyone will always back down and give in to their "demands" (as they continue to forget who the hell
it is they work for), they have now painted themselves into the corner, of either being weak, or of over-reaching. Neither is good for them.
However, they cannot appear to be weak, as that terrifies them to even think about, so they will take option B, which will be to over-reach. They're
used to living with that image, and it doesn't bother them that never have so many of us hated so few of them for so many justifiable reasons.
The one thing they can't live with is the appearance of weakness. They never lose these battles with us insects. They always win. To not win is to
show weakness to the insects, and then the insects begin to understand that together, they are bigger than any government agency/branch, and this
terrifies our g-men overlords to no end.
I suppose there is the possibility of a "draw" for now where each sides regroups, or there is some kind of resolution, but if that doesn't happen,
then the Feds will use force because showing weakness to the citizens that pay their salaries is something they refuse to even contemplate. It's not
Whether or not this is the "definitive" action that sparks a civil war will be left up to the historians, imo, should a civil war happen anytime
soon. There are so many things that could be pinpointed as a spark. Maybe Waco could be pinpointed, whereas many saw what happened, and saw that
they were getting ready to "exemplify" Bundy to the masses, and decided no, not this time, so Waco could be pinpointed by some as the start. Just
an example, but pinpointing the exact start of a conflict isn't always easily agreed on AFTER the fact, much less before it.
Could this be the straw that broke the camel's back? Hell yes it could be, especially if breaking the camel's back is what the Fed wants to do, so
that they can claim an excuse to centralize power even more, and take away more rights.