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.

 

The New American Revolution?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is a short article of mine. This is just my opinion and speculation.


The New American Revolution?


The terrorists of al-Qaeda and similar groups believe that if they can impose significant enough damage on Western institutions and civilians, they can frighten the West into retreating from Arab and Muslim lands. Their model of Western response to terror attacks is based on the U.S. retreat from Somalia following the "Black Hawk Down" episode, or the retreat from Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut. But the models they should really attend to are Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.

Why Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor? In both these cases (the Civil War and World War II), the U.S. was directly attacked. But in neither case did the attacker seek to conquer the U.S. (or the rump Northern U.S. in the case of Fort Sumter). Rather, both the Confederate States and the Japanese Empire sought only to be allowed a free hand in their own spheres. The U.S. could have accepted peace in both cases and would have been left with a substantial sphere of its own. Indeed it could be argued that the U.S. would not have suffered much in its essential interests if it had let bygones be bygones.

But the U.S. response in both cases was total war: war of conquest, war to the last ditch, war at tremendous cost in men and money, war for a cause. And, on a lesser scale, America responded in the same vein to the attacks of 9-11, which provoked the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those wars were undertaken to eliminate sources of the threat and to spread the cause of American liberal democracy in the Muslim world. There is no reason to think that further attacks on American soil would provoke any different response.

World conquest? Don't get me started. For all that the United States is the foremost military power, it has not yet come close to its potential. To eliminate a major threat to its security and ideals, the U.S. could probably increase military spending seven-fold to more than 20% of GDP for at least a few years. It could probably build a military force numbering in the tens of millions and arm it with the best technology. It could strike back as often and as deeply as necessary. The conquest of the entire Middle East—or even more— could be its goal, with all that such a war would entail. The U.S. doesn't have a huge empire now not because it can't take one, but because it—quite rightly—doesn't want or need one. But its perception of its needs would change in the face of a major new attack on American soil. It would respond by tracking down its enemies and counter-attacking to eliminate their bases of support. The bigger the threat, the bigger would be the commitment to counter-attack.

This isn't a world we want to see. We don't want more attacks on American cities. We don't want to live through the futile destruction of American blow and terrorist counter blow. And we don't want the terrible costs of major wars. We don't want the loss of freedom at home that more security strictures would bring. We don't want the hatred and killing, nor the devastation that would fall upon all the countries involved.

But Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists should make no mistake: it could not end happy for their cause. The United States does not retreat when it is attacked, and it does not like to retreat from ideological enemies in any case. The peace movement in America would wither away in the face of further attacks, and warlike American responses would continue unless and until the futility of such actions was thoroughly and totally demonstrated. Consider the body counts from the Civil War and World War II. Consider that a negotiated peace was never sought by the U.S. in either of those wars. It won't be sought this time, either.

Major terrorist attacks on America can't cripple the U.S. militarily. And they can only increase the American will to strike back. In this role, America would not be like Israel, outnumbered and restrained by world opinion. America would act as the superpower it is: unconstrained and overwhelming.


Thank you ATS for your time.






[edit on 2-1-2006 by the_renegade]




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
What is your theory exactly?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
That the war on terrorism is just the starting stage in the new American revolution. You have to start somewhere.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I like what youv'e written and i agree with virtually all of it ...

I just think labeling it the New American Revolution, just isnt quite spot on ?

Hmm maybe the New Democratic Revolution ? i Mean that is the Western objective, peace and Democracy, and the USA certainly needs this to be a team effort.

A guy just started a post in which he lables this post of yours as far from the truth as possible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

His post is entitled " The Truth about the War on Terrorism ", needless to say his post is full of Propaganda, lies, poetry and that kind of stuff, but his title is what you should of had i think!

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Interesting theory, and I agree with most of it as far as the response of America when attacked on her soil. However, what I don't see is the ability of America take over the world, or even the middle east. Times have changed from 1860 and 1941 to now. Even Rumsfeld agrees that the days of "overwhelming numbers always wins" is over. The technology to wage war has increased to a point where it doesn't take a super-power to deliver super-blows. Strategic nuclear strikes could easily disable America beyond it's ability to retaliate effectively. Several countries are cabable of it, and a coalition of say China/North Korea/Iran would be a formidable opposing force in a prolonged "World War", and I think that's exactly what will happen if America continues to "conquer" in the middle east. If Iran or Syria are invaded next, then I see a toppling of dominoes akin to the assassination of Ferdinand in 1913. And this time I think the term "Great War" will stick.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Yea, whether we can and whether we should are two very different things. Its no secret that we could win another WW, but at the cost of so much life. Much more than what we have seen in the past. If we (the US) doesnt step back and recollect itself (and recollect some key allies) we will be met with more than the "Axis of Evil." We arent making new friends. A new fight in the Mideast, or Asia would require a huge American sacrifice with our old EU allies, let alone without them. This is especially so if we plan on minimizing civilian deaths, instead of just bombing the hell out of places. We are more than capable of turning the Mideast into a giant glass parking lot for our airforce, but at what cost?
I think the new revolution will be due to the continued separation and inability for the Left & Right to work out compromises and solutions, like this push-me-pull-me we have now. Our government has got to get together, put our checks and balances back in place, and figure out policies that are supported by a broader spectrum of its citizens, or our revolution will be just that, a revolution. There is no revolution to change laws, or impeach leaders, or to influence policy. A revolution is about land. At least a successful one is. I dont want to see the US split into two countries, do you?
Very well thought out though, renegade. I applaud you for a very well written piece. Bravo



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I have read your replies, and thank you for having the time to read mine and to those others who have read it, thanks.

Cruncher believe it or not I had a harder time figuring out a proper title than writting my article
. You option is a greater one than what I had put. Thank you for that.

SKMDC, the US tactics are no longer overwhelming numbers, but overwhelming technologies and how to embrace these technologies and use them to there benefits. Yes, other countries may produce there own technologies, and yes a tactical nuclear strike would indeed cripple the US people but not the US military.
This ones for you SKMDC: www.worldtribune.com...

Funk, I agree that the US needs to keep there allies or else this will "blow up in their face." And if a revolution occures I hope it will not be based on Left or Right hand status, I truly believe the US will crumble if this would be the case.

Thank you for your valuable and much appreciated input
.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by the_renegade]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_renegade
SKMDC, the US tactics are no longer overwhelming numbers, but overwhelming technologies and how to embrace these technologies and use them to there benefits. Yes, other countries may produce there own technologies, and yes a tactical nuclear strike would indeed cripple the US if caught off guard.
This ones for you SKMDC: www.worldtribune.com...

Funk, I agree that the US needs to keep there allies or else this will "blow up in their face." And if a revolution occures I hope it will not be based on Left or Right hand status, I truly believe the US will crumble if this would be the case.


the most important of these technologies is media science. and education.

with these DEVASTATING weapons, all humans can be shaped into the same mold, ...the stepford populations.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
However, I doubt that I would have titled the thread "The New American Revolution." I can also see where you might have a hard time assigning a title to this piece. You cover alot of ground here.

Where I have to take issue is in assuming that the U.S could so easily attain dominance by technology alone. What you fail to understand is that the only way to maintain control to complete your mission is by the "Boots on the ground." We are learning this in Iraq now; just as the Red Coats learned during the Revolutionary War. A persistent guerilla force can (And has - as the U.S. did) won a war against a technologically superior and numerically superior force.

Attempting to oppress a people without actually maintaining physical control of them will certainly lead to continued cladestine and guerilla attacks the against the oppressor. Why? Because without physcial control you provide them the key ingredient for such missions to succeed, and that alone is opportunity.

No sir, technology may allow you to win a battle or even all of them... but by itself, it will never win you a war. The pattern of escalation by even attempting it would assuredly lead to consequnces that the world community would not tolerate.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_renegade
It could probably build a military force numbering in the tens of millions and arm it with the best technology. It could strike back as often and as deeply as necessary.


I assumed that the US could probably build a large foot force, equiped with there leading edge technology in time.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Before 9-11.

Did we have the Great Depression?

Did We Have a Global War Going on around Us?

Did We have A Common perceived Enemy?

The Easy Answer is No. WWII has nothing in common with 9-11.

While "terrorists" Might Easily Stage a "pearl Harbor" event. How do you declare War on a Extreme religious populace spread out in many nations?

Do you invade a "Few" Nations to kill the Hydra? Then The Hydra's Remaining heads will turn and Bite you. And Regrow its decapitated Heads A New.

Do You Ignore the perceived "Friendly" Muslim Nations? Then the Head State "peace", while Another Head "Bites" you.

How Do You win the War Then? You Do like the Romans Did at Masada. You Encircle the Whole Religious populace, And wipe them Out. And Repeat Until All Resistence is Dead. Then and only Then, Will you have peace.

But The US of Now Will Never Allow that to happen.

The US Media\people had a Big Stink over a Few People in Waco Texas. Imagine the uproar when it Number up to a Few million people. (And we certainly Will Never Bow down To a Icon of President Bush, Much less the Muslims. Like the Jewish People Bowed down\Burned incense to Augustus "bust". To Escape Presecution)

Here there is no Common identity with the populace. (In Rome. You were a Roman First, Then a Greek, Syrian, Egyptian, etc.) Here Your Spanish America, Black American, "White" American. Here you have allegience to a "party" or yourself. Or an Idea like a "Global Village".

The Romans Had Roman Soldiers at thier Borders. The US has vigilanties. and peace Niks.

The Romans Didn't Care about "Humane Treatment of prisioners". They just Raped\Killed The Enemy Populace. The US "pays" others to like them.

The romans didn't Care for Collateral Damage. They Burn the Temple, and Enslave the populace. THe US Shows the World That won't destroy A Mosque fulled with Enemy Soldiers. (The Romans would Blow the Mosque To Mt. Olympia, And state "whose Next"?)

I'm Sure I can go on. But I feel I'm Being long winded to prove a simple point.

The US will Not win the War. Unless We are Willing to become like The Roman's Agian. (Or Britian With India in the 1700-1800's, etc)(Using other Countries as our "Merciless" Warriors don't Count. The Romans did that in the 300-400 AD, and look where that led them.)

What I predict is a protracted War With Islamic Extremism. With Many Victories for the Islamic Side. Until either the West Lays down the "PC" Gloves, or Islam Does which it does Best. The Hydra Heads Fight over the "Booty" And commits Self Genocide.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
msnevil, you have an excellent point. Unless we "conquer" Iraq, in the true sense of the word, we will never win. There is a seemingly endless supply of enemies, and dwindling allies. We can't force those people to leave everything they have ever known and try this new way of life, whether its a better way or not. They have to want it. I think they have made it obvious they dont see us as liberating anymore, we are occupying.
We should learn lessons from people like Che Guevara, or Fidel Castro. A grossly outnumbered, outgunned, and outpositioned band of revolutionaries took an entire country. This is just the popular couple, there are literally hundreds of instances of this over history. (I'm too lazy to post links however).
On a seperate note, since the thread is called "The New American Revolution", How many people think a true revolution would last long? Do you think our military would actually assault its citizens?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
If a revolution were to happen, I would assume that the US military presence would exceed itself worldwide from what it is now. The US is practicaly worldwide already, their military is everywhere, except for some "rouge" nations.

I understand that there will always be insurgents and rebels fighting back, but there will be no one to govern them on there tactics (ie The current status of the Iraqi insurgency), blind fighting or it will be the frustrated citizens of that country who will fight back. And at home there will always be citizens who will disagree with the US's tactics.

As for the US military assualting the INNOCENT citizens of rebel natipn, I certainly hope not, yet mistakes do happen

The sambuka is kicking in
.


[edit on 4-1-2006 by the_renegade]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Nah wont happen sine too much oil is in the middle east america wont just leave also china would come in to the middle east if we left.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Why would China move in if we left?
Also, if impeachment movements start in the spring I think we will see a gradual pullout in Iraq. I think Bush sees himself as semi-invincible as far as diplomacy goes. Once he sees that a majority of the American people arent just bitching, but taking action over an illegal war, illegal spying, botched intelligence, etc...I think we will see him try to ease his way out of this.
(When I say Bush I mean the whole gang. I dont think he is smart enough to mastermind this whole thing on his own.)



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
You're right, Bush cannot mastermind what his administration has done during his term. The people will vote for another president and the same thing will happen, unless a democrat wins an election. Republicans for some reason always enjoy a good game of risk.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoSteve85
Nah wont happen sine too much oil is in the middle east america wont just leave also china would come in to the middle east if we left.



Hell, perhaps China could do a better job than America in the Middle_East......they sure are not restrained by Liberals or a back-stabbing media. If Chinese contractors woulda been strung up in Fallujah, you can bet the PLA airforce woulda flattened that POS city.

In WWII we blasted whole cities into rubble...until our enemies cried "Uncle"...well these days if we acccidently kill 10 people we have ATS members screaming bloody murder.

Maximu§



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
at least in our lifetimes.

"How Do You win the War Then? You Do like the Romans Did at Masada. You Encircle the Whole Religious populace, And wipe them Out. And Repeat Until All Resistence is Dead. Then and only Then, Will you have peace."

It's a shame that a few men have put the population of this world in such a controversial war against the Muslim people when all they wanted to do is rule the oil,seed and drugs in the world. One flaw I see to your war winning strategy, msnevil, is that there are millions of Muslims who are also American citizens. and if any 'body' was to ever wipe-out an entire populace the last entity in the world that any of us would to see doing that, is the U.S.
Once you have a better understanding of how this government functions against it's own people, and how this government is "the people's" worse enemy and the most deadly terrorist in the world, it becomes harder to believe that 'the right thing to do' is to try and wipe out the entire Muslim population.
At the moment many of us perceive them as 'terrorist', mostly because that is how they are portrayed by the American press and how these people are used by our military to continue with their hidden agenda. I believe in the long run more people will reflect and reconsider the people who were willing to take a stand and continue their fight against this superpower. I won't go so far as to call them "freedom fighters", but they are fighting to maintain their freedom, while we do nothing because we believe we are free.

Don't get me wrong, I do not condone their murderous actions anymore than I do the actions of this government.
I don't believe this war was supposed to climax with a showdown between the 'Christians' and the Muslims. as in God vs. Allah.
especially when we are obviously on the losing side of that equasion.
The Nation of Islam has an obvious presence throughout the world, while the Christians, especially "American Christians" are a rare establishment outside of our borders.
It would be much easier for the people of the world to achieve "peace on earth" if they were to UNite and destroy this establishment and the people who support or allow this form of government to control their lives.
Besides our natural borders, we are working on building the best borders in the world, to keep people out, one day they could be used to keep 'the people' , their government and their ideas, IN.

Wouldn't it be perfect?
Would you be willing to give your life, as an American, if you believed it would give children a possibility to breath the air and drink the water in 75 years from now? Peace will never be obtained without sacrifice, somebody has to make it.
There is a reason they call U.S. the "great white devil" , it is because we are obviously the great white destroyer of Earth.


"Major terrorist attacks on America can't cripple the U.S. militarily. And they can only increase the American will to strike back. In this role, America would not be like Israel, outnumbered and restrained by world opinion. America would act as the superpower it is: unconstrained and overwhelming. "

the_renegade,
I'm not sure if you noticed, but after Hurricane Katrina it became painfully obvious that the U.S. Military is not only cripple, but unable to help the people of this nation in a time of need, in a 'timely' fashion. If 1000 soldiers or 'sleeper cells' were to unite within our borders and strike the general population, it would be the general population who would have to defend themselves. We would all be dead waiting on our soldiers to come home and protect us, on our own soil.
Our military is mostly comprised of the youth of our nation who are too poor to afford college, too hardheaded or 'disorderly' to graduate from high-school, or too big-hearted to watch their friends go to war alone... and other wonderfull children.
Too much of the footage I see on tv lately when it deals with the soldiers and their daily lives in Iraq is saddening. Very few of them want to be there, not only because it is thousands of miles away from their loved one's, but they are much like us in the feeling of " why are we doing here?"
It's too late to ask that now, if the truth were to be revealed it would be catastrophic to all of U.S.
It's about the power and greed of small group of mongrels, who appear as men... some of them have even been known to be 'leaders'.
If you want to blame it on radical Islamic people, the religious war has been going on for a thousand + years. Now that this government has chosen to identify their target as "radical Islam", our military can never turn their back and walk away from this war,
or Allah's people will bring it right back to U.S.
As in, hand us our asses.
The main problem with this is, there are millions of Muslim-American's living in this country and they cannot be aprehended or detained for who or how they are living, untill after they strike. (Unless they discuss conspiracies on the phone or possess radioactive materials)
Just like the suicide bombers you hear about on the news, they are so effective and deadly because they are as invisible to others as their intentions are,
untill they explode.

I am much like you in the desire and illusion that we are the best and chosen people of the world, because right now we see ourselves as the 'superpower' of the world. But I am also of the understanding that 'WE' amount to much more than the American population. And when it boils down to it, eventhough we 'the people' are all willing to accept what they are feeding us, WE, the human spirit will never be dominated by the American Spirit... especially when the spirit of this government is hell bent and determined to milk our slave behinds to the bone.
This government has oppressed and inoculated us to the point where the majority cannot even acknowledge the obvious.
The revolution will start here, by Americans who are sick and tired of the lies, that are still strong enough to pursue the truth.... with an ugly stick.
We must STOP ourselves.

Peace/Out



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Thank you Submersible.
.

Aside from Hurrican Katrina and the soldiers asking why they are there I truly respect your opinion.

The entire military was fighting overseas, and when a disaster hits home the National Guard takes control. So please do not blame the military, they were out doing what they get paid to do.

And usually I see soldiers on tv, showing there respects to the gov't and cheering on Rumsfeld, Bush, etc. Unless that's all an act. I doubt it, and of course all want to go home to their families, especially after fighting for 5 1/2 years.








[edit on 5-1-2006 by the_renegade]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I don't blame anybody inparticular for what is happening today, to put the blame on one person is like saying that one person could do something to solve our 'issues'.

For the most part when you see the soldiers in the same scenes with one of our so called 'leaders'... most of those are photo-ops. ( A chance for them to make themselves look good on camera)
You should check into some of the documentaries the cable channels are doing on the soldiers when there is just one camera and a hum-v or tank full of soldiers,
they are not happy about the situation.

I like your ideas tho', something must change and it would be better for us if we 'the people' were the one's to initiate change, especially considering the position we see ourselves sitting in.
Remember, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join