It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential for Civil War in the USA

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Civil war is when one or more parties are vying for control of one government. What if Texas (for example) just wants to go its own way and start its own country? That not a "civil war" that is a revolution. I'd love my home state to be its own country. Local is where its at. Whatever lets be PEACEFUL about it!


I think you make a good point. Local is where it's at.

But to separate from such a well-designed system, even though it has it's obvious problems, poses it's own problems as well.




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The powers that be are not going to let it go that far.
You cannot possibly think that the DEM/REP thing
is anything more than diversion?



edit on 14-12-2016 by ezramullins because: durr



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

There won't be a civil war here.

Sure some groups of people may be pissed off for a variety of reasons but most people here really don't want to engage in some social war with other Americans. They aren't nearly that uncomfortable with how things are.

There are a million and one ways that people are sedated in this country first of all. From fast food to TV to NFL to Game Systems. There's no way that many people are going to give up these things just so they can go kill their neighbor. Won't happen.

Anyone who's so dumb as to think actually battling it out with other folks just like them, having their homes invaded etc. is going to be a very small minority of people and with very little resources anyway even if they did want to a civil war. People in America have it pretty good. Even if you're homeless here in America it's not like being homeless in other countries.

Anyone wanting a civil war is just being a spoiled little brat and a whiny little b*tch. If they think it's so bad here in America and want to have a civil war over it need to go live somewhere where life is actually hard to gain some perspective.

At best, all you'd see here are some small groups of ideological insurgents getting out of hand and they'd be stopped soon enough. They could cause some trouble, sure, but they wouldn't make it too far or for very long.

People are either Too Comfortable or Too Lazy or both to ever actually do something like what you suggest.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I wonder how many people thought that before the American Revolution or the Civil War?



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
It won't be a civil war. It will be a race war. I can see a protest/riot spinning out of control and a reaction also spinning out of control, especially in urban areas; spreading like an evil virus from city to city. We came very close in LA after Rodney King.

God help us!

It's almost to horrible to even contemplate.
edit on 14-12-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
In this hypothetical scenario, are you proposing that the military would fracture?

That seems very unlikely. People like to talk about civil war. There is absolutely nothing that would cause one in the present climate (as long as people aren't starving or being killed), and certainly not one that would cause the President to lose control of the U.S. Military.

Because barring that, the side with the military on its side is going to win, no matter where they are located.

And how are we even supposed to know who the enemy is? You think in trying to win a war, the generals would just decide to keep their entire army holed up in indefensible positions?

Seems ridiculous.
edit on 14-12-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You think not?

I think it highly likely the military would fracture, just like it did during the last Civil War.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greggers

You think not?

I think it highly likely the military would fracture, just like it did during the last Civil War.


Like I said, not in the present climate.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I wonder how many people thought that before the American Revolution or the Civil War?


Not even remotely the same conditions.

Plus who would be fighting who in this theory???

The Left vs. Right??? Republicans vs. Democrats???

That's ridiculous. I'll admit there are some douchey folks on both sides with enough hate in their hearts to take it that far, but most people simply don't hate other people enough to give up their lives to go fight in the streets over it.

It's more likely that a civil war would break out between The People and the Establishment or something. Most people aren't even that interested in politics to give a sh*t.

They just do their job to make some money so they can relax and have a BBQ now and then.

You have to have a pretty messed up view of society to think we're that close to all out war in the streets with each other.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Yes, like that - thus chokepoints. The rivers that rail and automobile traffic have to cross are very wide. They cannot be re-engineered quickly.

Colorado mainly due to how the transportation moves through high mountain valleys. There are literally only two other "good" passages through the Rockies. Once you get past the Rockies that changes.

Arkansas and Missouri also both have very rugged terrain that are easily defensible and also easy to break out offensively from in all directions.

I have always wondered why there isn't a Clausewitz engine video game where you can try it out for yourself... :-)

I am reasonably sure that most people that REALLY gameplan this know that this time around the "yankee's" wouln't win.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko
I wonder how many people thought that before the American Revolution or the Civil War?


Not even remotely the same conditions.

Plus who would be fighting who in this theory???

The Left vs. Right??? Republicans vs. Democrats???

That's ridiculous. I'll admit there are some douchey folks on both sides with enough hate in their hearts to take it that far, but most people simply don't hate other people enough to give up their lives to go fight in the streets over it.

It's more likely that a civil war would break out between The People and the Establishment or something. Most people aren't even that interested in politics to give a sh*t.

They just do their job to make some money so they can relax and have a BBQ now and then.

You have to have a pretty messed up view of society to think we're that close to all out war in the streets with each other.



^This.

The entire scenario is preposterous.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
In this hypothetical scenario, are you proposing that the military would fracture?

That seems very unlikely. People like to talk about civil war. There is absolutely nothing that would cause one in the present climate (as long as people aren't starving or being killed), and certainly not one that would cause the President to lose control of the U.S. Military.

Because barring that, the side with the military on its side is going to win, no matter where they are located.

And how are we even supposed to know who the enemy is? You think in trying to win a war, the generals would just decide to keep their entire army holed up in indefensible positions?

Seems ridiculous.


Most civil wars are ridiculous. I bet you are the type that actually believes the USA's first civil war was to free the slaves and nothing else.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

The problem is rarely idealogy. The problem is mainly when powerful people feel like other areas of the country are dismantling their own power.

When they come to that conclusion they start making plans. Start pulling in other interested parties.

Right now in the US, that problem does again exist. Since the Johnson years all power has slowly been sucked to DC and NYC, and a little bit to California as well. The power is in those places. This you cannot deny.

So, when regional powerful men and women start to feel they are being robbed of their power they start making deals and start planning. It is as simple as that. It has always been that and always will.

It is exactly what the founders of the US tried to alleviate by separating powers and giving states equal representation.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greggers

You think not?

I think it highly likely the military would fracture, just like it did during the last Civil War.


No, it would not. During and prior to the Civil War, the United States was seen as a collective noun. People believed themselves citizens of their state first, citizens of the USA second, thus Robert E. Lee, who was asked to head the Union Army, felt compelled to go with his state, which seceded. Today two big things are different. First, the United States is a singular noun. We see ourselves as citizens of the United States, and states themselves as a jurisdiction not much different than a county or district. Secondly, there is no recognized group of states nor a separate "way of life" that is intent on seceding. There is no "structure to secede," hotheads in places like California and Texas notwithstanding. The armed forces itself is tightly integrated with no units that identify solely with states. The soldiers still have loyalty to their units, but the units themselves are composed of people from all 50 states.

The same structures that were in place during the Civil War are no longer extant. The armed forces would not fracture along state lines.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

At the risk of sounding like a jerk....i cannot imagine what a civil war between the left and right would look like. The folks who want to war because they don't like Trump.....they DO realize that "civil war" means they're gonna get shot by people well trained and well armed, right? Its not a picket/protest kind of affair?


This whole thing has had me scratching my head. I just don't buy it. It has to be fluff or fake.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

What kind of "planning" are you talking about though. There are shifts of power all the time but as we all know most "Wealth" power is concentrated in very very few hands and they certainly don't want to lose what they have because they have the most to lose and the Poor out number the wealthy like a 1000 to 1 or more.

I just don't understand who you think the sides are going to be that actually start fighting each other.

Rich vs. Poor??

White vs. Black??

Men vs. Women??

Dems. vs Rep.???

People with Odd number Birthdays vs. Even number Birthdays???

You won't find a significant amount of people for something like that. You can get some small groups organized in to doing something like that at best. Plus like others have said our military along with law enforcement would shut that sh*t down fast. Especially because most moderate folks which is the majority would get tired of it real fast too and help them stop it too.

Most people get along with each other, especially when the alternative is to war with each other. The fact is that we have it really good here for the most part and we all know it. We have our problems but it's not nearly bad enough for that to happen. Major, major parts of society would have to collapse first.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
An update for people not aware of a newer contention. The problem is that many leftwing electorial college delegates are demanding a full briefing from the Feds on this whole Russia thing before they go ahead and place their votes. In doing so they will possibly trigger some sort of constitutional crisis. It appears at the time that does not bother them. Here are the delegates names and states:

Christine Pelosi (CA)
Micheal Baca (CO)
Anita Bonds (DC)
Courtney Watson (MD)
Dudley Dudley (NH)
Bev Hollingworth (NH)
Terie Norelli (NH)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
Clay Pell (RI)
Chris Suprun (TX)
Newly Added Electors:
Sandra Aduna (CA)
Edward Buck (CA)
Donna Ireland (CA)
Vinz Koller (CA)
Katherine Lyon (CA)
John P. MacMurray (CA)
Stephen J. Natoli (CA)
Andres Ramos (CA)
Shawn Terris (CA)
Gail Teton-Landis (CA)
Olivia Reyes-Becerra (CA)
David Scott Warmuth (CA)
Shirley Weber (CA)
Denise Wells (CA)
Gregory H. Willenborg (CA)
Laurence Zakson (CA)
Polly Baca (CO)
Jerad Sutton (CO)
Robert Nemenich (CO)
William Marovitz (IL)
Nancy Shepherdson (IL)
Nazda Alam (MA)
Dori Dean (MA)
Jason Palitsch (MA)
Parwez Wahid (MA)
Paul G. Yorkis (MA)
Lillian Holmes (MD)
Lesley Israel (MD)
Robert Leonard (MD)
Salome T. Peters (MD)
Jules Goldstein (MN)
Melissa Mark-Viverito (NY)
Stuart Appelbaum (NY)
Hazel Ingram (NY)
Stephanie Miner (NY)
Melissa Sklarz (NY)
Andrea Stewart-Cousins (NY)
Laura Gillpatrick (OR)
Timothy Norman Powers Rowan (OR)
Sam H.W. Sappington (OR)
Beth Caldwell (WA)
Bret Chiafalo (WA)
Deb Fitzgerald (VA)
Terry C. Frye (VA)
Jeanette Sarver (VA)
Martha Allen (VT)

Here is their letter to the Director of National Intelligence:

extranewsfeed.com...


If they manage to stall or remove the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump in some way, they will in effect start or at least light the match that will eventually result in a civil war.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I would like to agree with you that we all have it good here. I can't, I am old enough to remember when it actually was.

Regardless, you would have to agree that the Feds are siphoning money off of the whole system to the benefit of a few and their cronies right?

Well, there are people that have generational "wealth empires" that are slowly being destroyed. They are tired of it. They intend for it to stop. The USA is basically Byzantine at this point and people not in the favor of Constantinople are longing for the old days.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I still think you're assuming that people are actually that concerned with Politics to start a war over something like that.

Most people pretty much think of our Politics as a bad joke already anyway. Only about 50% of this country even voted to begin with. Why?? Because they simply don't give a damn or care to be part of such a ridiculous game as DC politics.

Most people will treat it like a bad Reality Show. They'll watch what happens on the TV and think about how it could effect them but in the end they'll go about their day, talk sh*t about it with their friends and coworkers and adjust their lives the best they can, shaking their heads and impatiently wait until the asshats in washington get their sh*t together.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

So their tired of it, so what???

How much sympathy are people with "Wealth Empires" going to get from others because they're losing some of that empire??? My guess is not much. Because the rest of us have real problems much more serious than losing a house in the Hampton's or having to sell our fleet of cars. So what are they going to do exactly??? Are all 100 of these wealthy empire elites going start a war with 300 million other people because they're mad???

I mean what you're talking about is basically some Government Elite stealing from some other Elite. Well, what does that have to do with the majority of people in this nation?? Nothing. It's just a couple small groups of old wealthy f*cks arguing with each other. The other 99% of people don't even exist to them in the first place. At best some of them are pawns in a game they don't understand.

Who or what are the sides that you think are going to do battle and why??




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join