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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
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.


I agree with this. I do not think U.S. soldiers will refuse orders if a civil war/revolution took place.

As for my own opinion on the subject, a civil war/revolution today in the U.S. would be quite different than one from the early days of industrialization. Our military now contains massively deadly weapons and vehicles, including secret weapons, that will ensure their victory even if just a portion of soldiers remain loyal. Would the U.S. government nuke its own populace into submission? I think it would. Even if they didn't use nuclear weapons, the extremely powerful conventional weaponry available to the government is far beyond any hand held firearms that the public can access.

The U.S. would certainly no longer be a republic of any sort after such a war. There would be no pretense left to give any guise of benevolence. Although I do not see how it could transition into some type of empire without it crumbling from the resistence. Whatever the case would be concerning the outcome of a new U.S. civil war/revolt, I envision complete anarchy as the result. Relative anarchic peace for a while followed by regional wars to create new governments by the inevitable thirst of man to control the population.

I don't know what the international community would do or what would happen to it in such an event. Though the more war mongering types would certainly attempt to take advantage of the situation.




posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

I agree with this. I do not think U.S. soldiers will refuse orders if a civil war/revolution took place.

Can you clarify this? The idea was that US soldiers would "shoot their own familes". You have mentioned them refusing some order. What order, exactly? Are you saying that they would shoot their own families if ordered to do so under the auspices of official "Civil War"?

Refusing an order is different from shooting your entire family. How is that situation supposed to arise? I have more faith in American servicemen.



[edit on 29-4-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Can you clarify this? The original quote was that US soldiers would "shoot their own familes". You have mentioned them refusing some order. What order, exactly? Are you saying that they would shoot their own families if ordered to do so under the auspices of official "Civil War"?

Refusing an order is different from shooting your entire family.


Soldiers take and execute orders extremely well these days. If they are told to "kill anyone who resists" they certainly would, including their own family members. I sincerely doubt soldiers would ever be given the order to "kill your family", but under the reconditioning solders receive these days, if a family member happened to be resisting the government by violence or protest and they were given an order to "kill anyone who resists", I think they would.


How is that situation supposed to arise? I have more faith in American servicemen.

Under martial law I imagine any edict can be enforced by the military.

I don't have any faith in voluntary American servicemen after watching the complicity of their actions for the last several years. Involuntary draftees are an exception.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

under the reconditioning solders receive these days, if a family member happened to be resisting and they were given an order to "kill anyone who resists", I think they would.

There were American servicemen in Vietnam, who risked their lives to expose the atrocities that were being done on the locals. They cared about those people. Just because a person joins the military doesn't mean they surrender their soul. In fact, lot of these kids are dumb but street smart. They join the military just like any other authority system --because they have to. They aren't going to shoot their grandma just because Lt. fancypants orders them to. Read "Generation Kill".

The NWO scenario you're talking about will crumble based on the very mistake you are making. It's like the Emperor in Star Wars who thinks he can control his minions, but at whose hands does he finally die? Why it's Darth Vader, his closest ally and chief enforcer. I use this analogy to describe what I think will happen if the NWO generals think they can seize power and order Americans to become Nazis. In the end, they will learn that their power does not flow that far. The American grunt with the rifle is not an idiot. He's like Vader only in nebulous, collective form. He's the pivot on which all modern power rotates. The battle for his soul (if that 'civil war' happens) will be won by the good side.

It's just as easy to shoot your commanding officer as it is to shoot your mom...

...much easier, in fact.



[edit on 29-4-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
There were American servicemen in Vietnam, who risked their lives to expose the atrocities that were being done on the locals. They cared about those people. Just because a person joins the military doesn't mean they surrender their soul. In fact, lot of these kids are dumb but street smart. They join the military just like any other authority system --because they have to. They aren't going to shoot their grandma just because Lt. fancypants orders them to. Read "Generation Kill".


As I noted at the bottom of my previous reply, I make an exception for involuntary soldiers. Of which the Vietnam Conflict had many. They won't take orders like a voluntary soldier would nor do I hold them to the opinion I have of voluntary soldiers.

Voluntary soldiers are different which is what the U.S. military is comprised of today. They truly want to be where they are at. Some even want to legally kill other humans. Now there might be circumstances in their life which leads them to to the military, but in today's world there are plentiful options for wage earning and career building that do not have to be tied to the military. Even if they aren't as good a choice monentarily as going to the military, there is a choice.


The NWO scenario you're talking about will crumble based on the very mistake you are making. It's like the Emperor in Star Wars who thinks he can control his minions, but at whose hands does he finally die? Why it's Darth Vader, his closest ally and chief enforcer. I use this analogy to describe what I think will happen if the NWO generals think they can seize power and order Americans to become Nazis. In the end, they will learn that their power does not flow that far. The American grunt with the rifle is not an idiot. He's like Vader only in nebulous, collective form. He's the pivot on which all modern power rotates. The battle for his soul (if that 'civil war' happens) will be won by the good side.

It's just as easy to shoot your commanding officer as it is to shoot your mom...

...much easier, in fact.


I didn't mention NWO in my posts. I was discussing a civil war/revolt scenario. If an overt NWO event takes place, then there may not be any U.S. soldiers doing the martial law enforcement in the U.S. It may be completely foreign UN or NATO troops coming in and doing the dirty work while U.S. troops are left overseas to enforce the new NWO laws abroad and away from their homeland.

IMO, you give soldiers too much credit. Many ARE as dumb or vicious as they appear to be and won't change. I don't give people the benefit of the doubt when they are dealing with issues of life and death like politicians, policemen, lawyers, doctors, or soldiers. Mistakes in these fields of employment can sometimes be very deadly and I take them all seriously and have little empathy for bad decisions as such. Especially those where weapons are involved on a daily basis.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

I don't give people the benefit of the doubt when they are dealing with issues of life and death like politicians, policemen, lawyers, doctors, or soldiers. Mistakes in these fields of employment can sometimes be very deadly and I take them all seriously and have little empathy for bad decisions as such. Especially those where weapons are involved on a daily basis.

So lawyers are as important to a society as soldiers? That's a new one on me. I'd love to hear more.

What kind of "mistakes" could a soldier make? We're talking about pointing a weapon at his family and executing them. That would be a choice, not a mistake.

How am I trusting soldiers? I'm just stating what I know about US service people. They are smart, normal people who are co-workers, friends of mine. None of these people would ever shoot their family.

Do you live in America? Have you known someone who was injured in a war? I am curious.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
So lawyers are as important to a society as soldiers? That's a new one on me. I'd love to hear more.

Absolutely. They set the laws for which society operates. Either through their law practice, being appointed judge, or by becoming politicians. A soldier is a tool. A living weapon which is used to either defend a society from attack or enforce government policy home or abroad. They are not trained to think. They are trained to act. If it could be guaranteed that soldiers would think very thoroughly regarding their actions, perhaps the atrocities of war wouldn't take place. Though that wouldn't stop a war from happening because its up to the politicians (which are primarily former lawyers) who decide these things.


What kind of "mistakes" could a soldier make? We're talking about pointing a weapon at his family and executing them. That would be a choice, not a mistake.


The issue of killing a family member didn't enter into that statement of mine, but you're taking everything I said as such. I was stating that soldiers can make mistakes like accidentally shooting somebody who didn't need to be shot. Don't look too deeply into my words. If I didn't mention "family" in a paragraph, this means I'm already going somewhere else with my opinion away from the issue of soldiers killing family members.


How am I trusting soldiers? I'm just stating what I know about US service people. They are smart, normal people who are co-workers, friends of mine. None of these people would ever shoot their family.


During a time of revolt or martial law, you don't know what would happen. Smart and friendly voluntary soldiers are still trained with the same conditioning that dumb and mean ones are. When the training kicks in, duty will probably come before everything else.


Do you live in America? Have you known someone who was injured in a war? I am curious.


I absolutely live in the United States of America. Most of my older male relatives were drafted into the wars of their generation. Few were actually injured physically. I don't have to honor today's soldiers just because somebody who shared a portion of my genes was formerly forced into being one themselves.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Absolutely. They set the laws for which society operates. Either through their law practice, being appointed judge, or by becoming politicians. A soldier is a tool. A living weapon which is used to either defend a society from attack or enforce government policy home or abroad. They are not trained to think. They are trained to act.

Humans make laws collectively for themselves (common law). They don't need lawyers. Lawyers are an accessory of civilization, not a component. Soldiers, however, are needed to defend the children, food, property, etc. I thought it was funny how you placed the two side by side but now it sounds like you don't even see them as equals.

If you are sketching the US soldier as a robotic pawn who'd shoot his own mother, is it wrong for me to sketch the US law professional as a heartless shark who'd send his mother to jail for life? If things got bad in America, I'd trust the soldier over the lawyer every day of the week.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
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?


I don't know what the percentages are, but everyone I know who has joined the military did so for the education, benefits, a chance to move out, etc. Cash is not the only form of compensation. Of course there are those who join because their family has a military history, or they want to "defend their country", etc.


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


I take it you weren't around in the sixties? Soldiers will do what they're commanded to do. That's even truer today than in years past, as psychotropic drugs have now been introduced into the military.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

I take it you weren't around in the sixties? Soldiers will do what they're commanded to do. That's even truer today than in years past, as psychotropic drugs have now been introduced into the military.

Sorry, but your answers do not hold water. Psychotropic drugs? I've known veterans who did drugs while in a war zone, but none that had them issued by their commanders. Isn't there a downside to that kind of thing in regards to following orders while on drugs, etc? I mean, we know that nazi's were hopped up on amphetamines but what type of drugs are you talking about exactly. Don't soldiers become less managable when they are given speed? I know MDMA would surely cause them to stop fighting. Also, how will these psychotropic drugs be deployed/administered in time of crisis? Are the drugs hidden in their Chicken ala King MREs?

No, I wasn't around for the sixties but it sounds like you were. Is your attitude toward American soldiers the same as it was then? Did you stick flowers into the muzzles of their rifles during the sixties?

Frankly the generation of the sixties was more ignorant and that's why Kent State was such a shock to the system. That pain has not gone away and the minute any soldier fires upon Americans, you will see a different reaction, IMO. It has happened in the past, and yes, the military is better at brainwashing their recruits than they were forty years ago. And yes, some of these soldiers may be drugged/mind controlled (less than 3% I'd wager). However, the Internet makes the difference. Once such an event happens (shooting of US citizens by a military force) it will be spread all over the web, unless you assume that the web would go down before the NWO takeover goes down.

This raises another question because heelstone said he wasn't initially speaking about NWO but who else could have the power to order a soldier to kill his loved ones if not an NWO type allegience? Wouldn't it have to be a mormon or similar American soldier who has a strict belief system about following "holy orders"? This I could see because religious people WILL kill their families if they feel God has instructed them to. Heck, good old Abraham himself started that trend. Killing your family members is often fine with God.

You guys've got a very confused picture of how orders are given and how they are followed. Not all servicemen in Vietnam were drafted. Even career military men fragged their commanders over there. It happened a lot. Like I said, it's easier to kill the person giving the orders than to kill someone you love or place yourself in a suicidal gambit at your commander's order. Once the power structure breaks down, the US will be weaker and everyone on Earth will know it. Why would our theoretical soldier be more inclined to become an executioner at the moment when his government is halved in strength as it would be during so-called 'civil war'? I'd like to have you describe his state of mind a little better for me.

BTW, welcome to ATS spamandham.






[edit on 29-4-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
A us soldier will protect his or her country from any threat given foriegn or domestic. Remember all militery personnel take an oath such as the marine corp oath: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that Iwill bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So with this if there was a revolution yes the armed forces would and always will serve only the U.S.A. constitution and President even if it was against their own family..... Just like the civil war in the past. Any who dont will then be court marshalled and most likey jailed. This is the way it works like it or not.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

A us soldier will protect his or her country from any threat given foriegn or domestic. Remember all militery personnel take an oath such as the marine corp oath: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that Iwill bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

"solemnly swear"? What does that mean, exactly? do you think Pvt. Vasquez knows what it means? If he does, he learned the meaning from his mama, and he will not shoot her just because his commander says to do so. You are foolish or brainwashed to believe that he would have a loyalty higher than his mom.

The family is the center of American life, folks. When civilization breaks down, it'll be families that rebuild and help their neighbors. The state is a diaphenous membrane which is placed over this family core, but it cannot penetrate it. Darth Vader will not kill his own son regardless of what drugs are pumped through him. I have here given you a very clear analogy with which to grasp this. Families will not be divided as they were in 1857. Slavery is not an issue anymore and each individual American person is smarter now. We all have the collective knowledge of the Internet at our fingertips. This means that any ONE PERSON can change the world. Believe this people. One person can change it.


So with this if there was a revolution yes the armed forces would and always will serve only the U.S.A. constitution and President even if it was against their own family..... Just like the civil war in the past. Any who dont will then be court marshalled and most likey jailed. This is the way it works like it or not.

The civil war was a hundred years before Vietnam. You don't think the command-strength of the military is different now? Understand this: The 19 year old US soldier of 2005 is lifetimes smarter and better educated than his 1857 counterpart. Please try to give him some credit.

The constitution is a slavery era document and will be altered at some future date assuming humanity lives on. I appreciate the Constitution but as an American I am not ignorant of what parts of it were first written/tested by the French and English. We are still a young country, but that is also in our advantage. If you try to predict which way the American rifleman will go, you had best bet on him going with his mom and dad. When nuclear bombs go off, it'll be moms, dads and their kids who will huddle together and try to survive.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Sorry, but your answers do not hold water. Psychotropic drugs?


www.cbc.ca...


Originally posted by smallpeeps
No, I wasn't around for the sixties but it sounds like you were. Is your attitude toward American soldiers the same as it was then? Did you stick flowers into the muzzles of their rifles during the sixties?


That would have been hard to do for a five year old watching the news about American soldiers firing indescriminantly into a crowd of their unarmed country men. How many examples do you need of soldiers dutifully murdering their own citizens to establish the principle? If you're willing to kill people to "defend your country", does it really matter who's on the recieving end?

BTW, I do not see American soldiers as any worse than any other professional soldiers.


Originally posted by smallpeepsFrankly the generation of the sixties was more ignorant and that's why Kent State was such a shock to the system. That pain has not gone away and the minute any soldier fires upon Americans, you will see a different reaction, IMO.


The context is a revolution/civil war. Do you actually believe the military would not be employed in such a case? Propoganda is amazingly effective, even in the presence of solid counter evidence. People want to believe the things those in authority tell them. If there were an executive coup, it would be accompanied by a false crisis of some kind such that the military would just be doing their duty of "defending the country", when in reality they would be the pawns of a megolomaniac. This is the exact technique tyrants have used to grab power throughout history.

By the time the average soldier figures it out, it's too late.


Originally posted by smallpeepsThis raises another question because heelstone said he wasn't initially speaking about NWO but who else could have the power to order a soldier to kill his loved ones if not an NWO type allegience?


The order wouldn't be "go kill your parents". The order would be "we're going to secure New Jersey Fallujah style" when your parents happen to live in New Jersey.


Originally posted by smallpeepsBTW, welcome to ATS spamandham.


Thanks!



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
When nuclear bombs go off, it'll be moms, dads and their kids who will huddle together and try to survive.


I think it couldn't of been said better.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Of course there isn't going to be some hypothetical situation of a soldier with a gun to his head. Yes they will declare martila law, and troops will be deployed, and fire on those that disobey curfews and orders and such. Civil wars though can only go on for soo long. Either families that are spread out begin to be affected, or the population grows weary.

What I worry about in civil war scenarios, is the Governments willingness to use Nukes agaisnt it's own country men. If the Government were to do so I think that would wake up the American people and have all families sticking together, for their own survival as mentioned above.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wang
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.


The more jobs that we lose to China or South America, the more this will change. When people have nothing, they have nothing to lose.

The idea behind out-sourcing is to make another nations people rich, so that they have money to buy your goods you produce and sell to them. It's a little difficult to see this working here because slave labor in China and around the globe is not enriching the poor nations. It's only causing the US to become poor.

What will happen when the middle class is gone in this country? I can say that in 20 years, there will no longer be a middle. You will be poor or exploited the poor in order to have what you have. The poor own guns and will take back what is needed when that time comes.

During the 90's, I made great money in manufacturing. Jobs were endless. Now, I cant find a job if I wanted to quit and my employer wants to pay me less because there are 500 people out there who will work for less just to have a job now. If I lose my job, I am screwed. There are no more manufacturing jobs left around here. 2/3 of them closed up in 2000-2002.
I will have nothing to lose soon, just like those 500 others who seek my job.
It's getting really #ty here in America. Buy your guns! Buy your AR-15's, MP 5's, and etc. while you still can.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
There wil simply be no civil war or revolution. It is impossible to lead any of them against the current goverment. Haven't you read Grapes of Wrath, 1984 or Brave New World, and We.

It is impossible to overthrow the present government.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostInAMelody
It is impossible to overthrow the present government.


..........Yes I have.......Although once upon a time some would of argued that finding land away from a monarch and beginning ones own nation were impossible....

If history has taught us one thing and one thing only...IMHO, it is the fact that NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!.

"When they expect you to go high tech, go lo-tech, when they expect you to go low-tech, go high tech"-William Gibson



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
The current form of 'Democracy(tm.)' in the US is a farce, and those who believe in it are deluded.
The elite in the US have set it up so that civil revolution is nearly impossible without massive non-compliancy, (or) violence/massive riots, or complete dislocation of the union and return to the government of individual states.
A 'revolution' is simply an attempt at changing things, where as a 'war' is a disagreement between multiple parties (it is basically an escalated version of an argument). Revolution normally leads to bloodshed and war, unless said revolution is started by a very powerfully manipulative/charismatic force, such as that which happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban were taking over from the warlords.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I believe that if there is a civil war in the US's near future, it will be the far-right/fundamentalist crowd vs. everyone else. They're being trained to see Americans who don't share their views as "traitors" out to destroy the country.

Don't take my word for it, listen to any popular right wing talk radio show and confirm it for yourself. You'll hear hour after hour of demonization of "the liberals" (anyone who opposes the far right) and how they're "trying to tear down America" or "destroy us from within." This is a necessary first step to getting people to be willing to kill their neighbors, they must first be trained to see them as implacable enemies.

I don't think the Dominionist takeover will take the form of a revolution, but of a coup from within the US .gov and military, possibly a "silent" coup with little if any actual fighting. A manufactured crisis will be necessary to provide cover, probably a staged terrorist WMD attack leading to a "state of emergency."

The civil war will follow the coup, but will likely be too little and too late, as the far right is prepared for it, and the rest of us for the most part aren't. By the time most Americans realize what's happening, the apparatus of the goverment will be firmly in the hands of the fanatics, and likely dissenters will already find themselves being rounded up and "detained" - IE processed for pending execution.

The fundies already have their pieces in place in the executive and legislative branches, and the process of purging unccoperative elements from the judiciary branch is about to begin. The military is being brought in line, starting with the officer class, as we can see in recent revalations from the US Air Force Academy. Making sure the bulk of the US nuclear arsenal is in their hands is, for obvious reasons, a priority. The CIA is being purged of "disloyal elements" as well, and pushed aside in favor of an intel apparatus in the DoD, where the right can count on more support.

[edit on 5/5/05 by xmotex]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join