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.

 

Civil War / Revolution. Which is it?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Many posts mention a potential for a "civil war" in our future. My question is, if an uprising against our gov. was to occur would it be considered a civil war or a revolution? It was my understanding that a civil war is war amongst "civilians" and a revolution is an uprising against those in power.

1. Which is it? Civil war or revolution?

2. Of the two, which is more likely to occur in our near future? And why?

3. If a revolution were to happen, do you believe that our soldiers, our sons & daughters in the military, would turn and defend our gov. or would they turn and revolt against our military/gov.

4. What would our gov. do if the bulk of the military (soldiers) refused to fight on behalf of the gov and fought for the revolution? How would the gov. respond.

What do you think?

Peace




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I guess everyone is just as confused as I am!

Peace



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I think the word you left out of your list of options is the one most likely to produce change:

"Elections."

People aren't THAT polarized. We see a lot of extremists on Internet because they're the mouthy ones (mainly the right-wingers here, but there are some extreme liberals.) But most of us couldn't walk through the neighborhood and decide who's for our concepts and who's against them. Furthermore, we always have the ability to vote the scoundrels out -- something that MOST people didn't have the last time we had a civil war.

If the discontents have that much of a majority, they'll vote the ones they don't like out... and the nations' government will swing their way. If they are a minority, then things won't go their way until they can persuade (not kill, not intimidate -- PERSUADE) others to follow their reasoning.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Good points. For the most part, I tend to agree...

But back to the intial question, as superficial as it might be, do you think a civil war or revoltion is more likely and is there a difference in your mind?

I know chances are slim to nihl for either happening- but I still would like your input on this.

Peace



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Idoubt itll be a conservative v.s liberal type thing, as conservatives tend to be armed and most liberals arent, wouldnt be much of a war...

Could be a gov type thing, no not the bush is crazy, liberal political mentality, but someone who gets into office who REALY is crazy, and the people revolt.

Or what i think will happen, We get nuked up the *** by some crazy people, and everyone goes nuts and starts fighting each other out of fear, a survival type thing.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by C0le]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I don't think that either scenario is likely, given the indifference of most Americans. Certainly if a rebellion wre to ensue, it wouldn't be "liberal' versus "conservative"; both sets are statists who want the government to take care of them, and differ inly in what aspect of government intrusion they prefer.

Any armed conflict would be libertarians versus statists, and there are simply too many people in the US (like, say ninety percent) who like being statists and like having a statist government, regardless of whether they complain against it!

My guess is that the only chance of large-scale (although probably unfocused) violence would occur in five or ten years, when the fall-off in petroleum availability triggers a major depression and infrastructure failure -- probably accompanied by a massive die-off.

But I don't think it will do any good, because you can't make empty oil-wells fill up by pointing a gun at someone.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
While I don't feel that either will occur, at least not in the near future, and probably not in the distant future (maybe in the WAY distant future), I think if some type of 'uprising' were to occur, it would probably be a civil war.

My theory is that you will gradually see certain states becoming very liberal and the others becoming very conservative, and slowly, over time, people that are inclined to be very liberal, will move to the liberal states, and the same for the conservative.

For example, let's say that many years from now, certain liberal states have made laws making abortion illegal and punishable by many, many years in prison, while other states, the liberal states, allow abortion. Those people that are against abortion will move to the conservative states and those not against it will move to the liberal states.

Over time, a protest group in one state will clash with a group from another state (say, an anti-abortion group in one state will clash with the pro-abortion group in another state), and slowly the state Governments will step in to protect the citizens of that state, leading to conflicts between the two states, and slowly other states will step in to help their like minded states and the next thing you know... civil war.

Ehh... my two cents...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I think the word you left out of your list of options is the one most likely to produce change:

"Elections."

People aren't THAT polarized. We see a lot of extremists on Internet because they're the mouthy ones (mainly the right-wingers here, but there are some extreme liberals.) But most of us couldn't walk through the neighborhood and decide who's for our concepts and who's against them. Furthermore, we always have the ability to vote the scoundrels out -- something that MOST people didn't have the last time we had a civil war.

If the discontents have that much of a majority, they'll vote the ones they don't like out... and the nations' government will swing their way. If they are a minority, then things won't go their way until they can persuade (not kill, not intimidate -- PERSUADE) others to follow their reasoning.



Elections of a nature in which they are now, resolves nothing.
Those with the money, keep those in power who they want to be in power.
Look at California. You would think the people here worship Feinstein and Boxer. NO! The DNC and RNC make sure these two senators never lose an election. They put no name boobs up against them.

When people like Ted Kennedy stay in the senate for years and years, there is a reason.
It's the same reason we saw two bonesman runbning for office this year.

ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED IN THE US!!!

Plane and simple!

Elections will resolve nothing because in order to run for a senate or house seat, you need the backing of the major parties or you will get no where.
The Lobby money runs so deep in our political system that it will never be resolved without a violent coup or a takeing back of the government by the people.

It is the ONLY way it will change now. We are far too gone and if any of you are too foolish to see this, than im sorry. We are done as a nation.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serum39
Many posts mention a potential for a "civil war" in our future. My question is, if an uprising against our gov. was to occur would it be considered a civil war or a revolution?


When you win, it was a revolution. When you loose, a civil war or rebellion.

A civil war has nothing to do with fighting agianst the people.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
What will happen, is the PEOPLE of the USA will rise up. Last i checked this is a country for the people, by the people. And I think the people are starting to realize this. Tou have a JUDICIARY who is making laws from the bench, A CONGRESS that is so concerned about keeping power, that they aren't listening to the people. And, finally you have an EXECUTIVE branch that doesn't give a damn about the people. An Example.......

ILLEGAL IMMEGRATION(sp)......The Judicial branch is enacting laws on their own personal beliefs. The Congress is afraid to do anything, for fear of losing their power. And the Executive branch, who is telling the people of the country to F.O.!!!!

Sooner or later, (preferably sooner)...the PEOPLE are going to see that the CONSTITUTION is on their side. Then the people will act, or as it seems REACT.....and hopefully set things right!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Pleeeeze, do you think this country would allow a revolution or civil war?

There would be a terrorist attack (wink) and we would be in a police state.
End of story.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The U.S. Military would not be able to fight against it's own populace on a large scale. Maybe put down isolated protests as they have in the past, however that is no where near taking up arms against fellow citizens.

Not to mention that a large "chunk" of our fighting force are the Reserve's and most have the mentality that they are a cilivian first, a soldier second. In reality, this is the case, as they are usually only called upon in extreme cases to augment the regular forces.

Also, the government has out sourced a lot of logistic / service related duties to private firms. Thus it would be my belief that they probally couldnt mobilize in an effective manner even if they wanted to.

Is a revlotution possible? Yes, I feel that we are very close to one. Will be it be violent? Initially yes. I feel action will be taken against a small group of people that will result in a national outcry leading to impeachemnt / replacement of several government officials. Not all out fighting in the streets that some may think.

Civil War? No. With instant information and our diverse poplation, not going to happen.

I can tell you that a vast majority of soldiers would not be able to stomach killing fellow Americans.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by crisko]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
First of all, your definition is a bit off.

A Civil War is usually when two factions are fighting for power- See War of the Roses for example. Two factions fighting to control the crown. Historians usually only consider something a civil war if it involves organzied armies duking it out.

A Revolution would be a sudden and drastic change in the social or political structure, often but not always through violent means. Wishing to change to a democratic representative government from a colony of a monarchy (American Revolution) is an example.

Really, the lines between civil war, revolution, rebellion, and insurgency get sort of fuzzy.

But, as to the topic...if there is a bonafide rebellion within the United States, I'll grab a shotgun and fire up the grill, because pigs should be flying over my house in droves. These things don't just happen overnight, it takes years of people genuinely hating eachother (not simple disagreement) for such a thing to occur. Besides the loons that want every conservative/liberal burned at the stake, the vast majority of Americans would not be willing to kill eachother over such stupid arguments.

As for "A war between the states"...not gonna happen. Robert E. Lee loved the United States, but fought for the South because he felt loyalty to Virginia. The vast majority of Americans are jsut that, Americans. Not Virginians or Michiganders or Arizonans, but Americans. There isn't the great cultural divide as there once was.

So, in my not to humble opinion, the idea of there being an impending civil war just comes from people that are

A. Full of angst and see that American politics are not going their way as the end of the world
B. Hardline partisans who secretly want a war so they can get a chance to kill all the liberal/conservative idiots. Anyone who says "We need a civil war" scares me.
C. Very sincere people who just don't know what they're talking about.
D. Nuts.

Now, there may very well be a poltical revolution, where people end up voting in or out drastically different politicians. But an armed conflict is really not an option.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Thanks! Well said.


Peace



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Get a petition going in all States saying names (fake of course) of those who will not pay income tax for one year in 2006 - watch how it grabs the present governments' attention after the lists gos into, oh I'd say a hundred million or more or so.

The government would have to claim bankruptsy after the first two hundred Fed Prisons are built.

Then averything go's downhill from that point on - but they'll start listening though.

Dallas



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Get a petition going in all States saying names (fake of course) of those who will not pay income tax for one year in 2006 - watch how it grabs the present governments' attention after the lists gos into, oh I'd say a hundred million or more or so.

The government would have to claim bankruptsy after the first two hundred Fed Prisons are built.

Then averything go's downhill from that point on - but they'll start listening though.

Dallas



Ummm... ok? Thanks... (scratches head)

Peace



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
hmmm i wonder which state will proclaim independance first



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
A war among states is simply not going to happen. The states have become subordinate governments of the Federal gov., as opposed to independent states (i.e. nations) as it was prior to Lincoln.

A revolution will not occur as long as the masses are not facing eminent peril. Few people are willing to risk death for an increased standard of living.

But, that doesn't mean a major paradigm shift can not happen. It just means that the "revolution" would be basically bloodless (i.e., we collectively decide this whole union idea is outdated), or the system simply makes itself irrelevant and eventually disappears (Roman empire).

The caveat is that there is the potential for a revolution in response to an executive branch coup. We have methodically concentrated power in the executive branch. If the President declared marshal law as an overreaction to another 9/11, the possibility of revolution would be dramatically magnified.

If there were a revolution, I suspect most soldiers would follow orders even if it meant killing their own families. The US has a mercenary army that undergoes tremendous psychological conditioning to create robots that will do what they are told without question.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

If there were a revolution, I suspect most soldiers would follow orders even if it meant killing their own families. The US has a mercenary army that undergoes tremendous psychological conditioning to create robots that will do what they are told without question.

This is a bold statement. Would you include all branches of the US military in your "mercenary" classification or just green berets/SEALS/marines/hardasses? Do you think money motivates these men, as it would mercenaries?

So if America does suffer internal conflict, you don't see the military playing a role beyond that of robot-style policemen and executioners?

Personally, having known lots of servicemen, I believe that if 1000 such soldiers were told to kill their families, you would have 995 of them refuse. Furthermore, the five who followed that order wouldn't be trusted by the other 995 nor would they be wanted in the same foxhole.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I dont know why all you americans think that a civil war or revolution will happen in the near future.....There are some people who see the lies and deceits of the american government but that is a very small portion of the population. The majority are to fat and lazy to even care.
Look at all the people in your malls, they wont revolt their happy as bunnies consuming everything.
America has a very very long way to go untill it reaches a revolutionary state. Althought i could see all the homeless getting together and fighting back....but they would be mowed down very quickly if they tried to revolt.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join