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.

 

IS the USA about to break up?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
We could probably learn something from Switzerland and their sovereign cantons. Unfortunately I think we are being driven into a North American Union of sorts. In one way or another they will probably use a break up of the US to their advantage.




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


If you don't live in the U.S. as an American I will be the first to put it lightly. Take a long walk off a short cliff. I'd say what I realy feel but in the spirits of a reasonably civilized place to post ideas I won't get vulger.

If you are in fact an American living here then I will say sure, why not? I'll U2U my home address and you can come over to start the revolution. I'll be waiting.

Are you realy that cruel, or just simply naive? Have you any idea the loss of life that will come about due to your "Civil" War? Are you realy that sadistic? I would be the first to say that if things got much worse that we should take head of the words in the Declaration of Independence and start a new government that is more suited to the people. But to advocate a Civil War for nothing more than your personal want to see this country split into multiple countries.

Did you see what happened in New Orleans? Look at what happens when you take away the food and water. What on Earth do you think a Civil war would do to people in this day and age? Civilization as we know it would break down comlpetely.

Some of you people with your grandiose ideas of Civil Wars, revolts, and Revolutions must not have the slightest idea as to the "true" cold reality of human nature. It is not caring, kind, or at all sympathetic. When we find ourselves in these situations of war and need we revert back to the most basic of instincts like fear, hate, hunger. Survival kicks in and we do things that we normaly wouldn't. The savage nature of man shows it's ugly head once more and reminds us of what we truely are deep down inside. And this is what you would like to unleash upon my country. For your own personal pleasure. I think that you haven't got any idea of the truely atrocious nature of man.

You sir can go strait to hell!



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
reply to post by slackerwire
 

Some of you people with your grandiose ideas of Civil Wars, revolts, and Revolutions must not have the slightest idea as to the "true" cold reality of human nature. It is not caring, kind, or at all sympathetic. When we find ourselves in these situations of war and need we revert back to the most basic of instincts like fear, hate, hunger. Survival kicks in and we do things that we normaly wouldn't. The savage nature of man shows it's ugly head once more and reminds us of what we truely are deep down inside. And this is what you would like to unleash upon my country. For your own personal pleasure. I think that you haven't got any idea of the truely atrocious nature of man.


When I was young and naive I thought that civil war and revolution were exciting. Yes, when I was a teenager, like all other teenagers, I was blood thirsty and war thirsty. It's the nature of man to be all of those qualities you point out in the above quote. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

To war mongers:

War of any kind is very cruel; ask those who've suffered them. Like any fight, unless it's staged, it's a waste of time groveling the opposition to stop when your side is losing. A fight has to go to its end and you rarely get to choose the end and the result.

I said in a previous thread that violence only ever creates a winner and a loser. The loser will usually harbour resent toward the winner and the cycle continues; and I firmly believe that.

There will always be those who have and those who have not. There will always be differences between people. There will always be people who play people's difference to start arguments who then run somewhere safe to watch events unfold. To stop this we need to accept our differences and work with them. When opportunities for betterment are not present, instead of war and violence, work to improve the situation - if need be, stop co-operating; only do it sternly yet peacefully. Sometimes violent wars need to be fought but they must only be fought for survival not excitement or feelings of greed, resent, envy, guilt, spite and especially never over a woman (or boyfriend).

Society and civilization have developed to the place we are currently at. It would be a massive shame to ourselves and great injustice to all humanity's ancestors for us to destroy that which our ancestors bequeathed which we inherited. We are also important to nature too for she has invested in us a lot - without her goodwill and protection from her other creations our species would not have survived its first hundred years let alone a few hundred thousand years. We owe nature and our ancestors to do them proudly and show ourselves favourably to the Universe not embarrassingly.

We need to learn from our mistakes; not to destroy them but to change or remove them and advance ourselves. Sometimes the mistake isn't the problem. Sometimes the problem is ourselves; we need to learn that too. All of us are imperfect in one way or other, and that is O.K, there is nothing wrong with being less than perfect; we are humans not gods.

To anyone thinking of using violence to effect change then I ask you to read the above carefully and talk to those involved in war. Think twice before creating the hysteria that could ignite the fuse of war. It will bring misery and death to many people most of whom don't care for change. Use your energy and time to help people care about their lot and to help people to want to better themselves should they wish. Opportunity brings choice which brings freedom. Think carefully before removing opportunity from people. You are here for a short time, use that time wisely not spitefully and selfishly. Be clever, see society for what it is, and work for long-term betterment not short-term. Most war starters do it for their own reasons not society's...

[edit on 23/3/2008 by Rapacity]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It means that me and mine would prefer to avoid a bloody violent revolution if possible. It is a last resort. Subterfuge is the prefferred method of warfare.



It is not a last resort, but an end to a revolution. When you turn to violence, it's no longer a revolution, but self defense. No revolution can happen with violence, only self defense. When you engage in self defense you are only protecting your life, not changing anything. You protect your life so that one day you may be able to revolt again should the system become corrupt.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rapacity
 


For the greater part of what you say I am in agreement with. I am a person that believes in the rational processes. Get together and talk things out, use the legal system, political path. War should always be an option left for last. It is the worst evil that man can perpetrate upon itself and others. Although on occasion a set of circumstances will arise when a man or people are left with no other viable option. Such as instances when their plea's fall upon deaf ears or the ears of despotic regimes. Times when it becomes necessary to defend a Country or similar situation. Or to defend ones basic freedoms.

I will not say that I would not stand behind a second Civil War if our rights continued to be trampled upon in even worse ways but not in the manner in which this man speaks of it and only when all other avenues have been exhausted. And it wouldn't be for the purpose of secession but to restore our rights and preserve our Union. And it most certainly wouldn't be done with the lack of a heavy heart knowing full well the hardships that my countrymen on all sides would face no matter what their stake, as I'm sure their actions would be calculated as would mine to be a sense of duty to family, country, and posterity.

It is not a thing to be taken lightly in the least bit.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by lazy1981]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by lazy1981]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


Exactly.

In my personal life, I average several fights (physical) every year; usually defending others. I stand my ground when it's important. I prefer to debate and argue. I've even stood and been hit without giving retaliation because the situation wasn't important enough for me to fight. I wont fight over something trivial (I think my signature explains a little about me). The difference between war and a man-to-man fight is that one affects two people and the other affects everybody in the vicinity. No war is worse than a family feud. A civil war is a family feud but on a much larger scale. Everything comes out. Every grievance, grudge, resentment. People are killed, people are raped (women, men and children), people are dissected, neighbours (friends and family) turn against each other, people are tortured mentally, physically and spiritually. And few take accountability because the war is their excuse to let loose anguish.

I think that many of those who call for civil war, revolution and the rest are those who rarely fight their own battles or who feel so inadequate in their own lives that they feel mass violence might enable them to climb above others. And, of course, we also have the idealistic young who've yet to recognize the opportunities ahead of them.

Some people see their situation as them-and-us. What they don't understand is that the them-and-us thinking creates their situation. Some people get a sense of security out of feeling hard done to by the supposed "them". If they take hold of their own lives and start making changes to their own lives then they might just have happier, livable lives of their own rather than making miserable other people's lives and livelihoods with their attitudes toward the "thems." I suppose in this sense I'm saying "revolution of the self" should be any revolutionaries first battle. Change one's own outlook first, change one's situation second. If one's problems are definitely the fault of others then move. If one's problems are due to administration (government) then it's for society to change that administration. Every other option should be played out first before violent uprisings are used.

Let me be clear before I say the next bit: I am white (sometimes olive), European. I think we can all learn from the likes of Malcolm X and Mahatma Gandhi. Both recognized real problems in their own society as opposed to putting their problems onto society. Both spread their ideas. Both brought about change. I admire both. The picture I've learned may be rosey so my opinion may change with time but regardless the picture their ideas still live as do the nations they helped build.

I see problems in U.K society. I see people blaming everybody else for their own mistakes. It p****s me off to know that no matter how far I see ahead of them and how often I give advice, people still make their mistakes and still blame others for those mistakes. They're their mistakes and they are free to make them - neither I nor anyone else should forcibly stop them from making them unless their mistakes affect people other than what could be considered self (whether self be a single person or a group acting as a unit).

An example: many people in the U.K blame the previous government for giving them the option to buy the council house in which they live/d (state housing). Those who chose to buy despite not being able to afford the purchase or despite being able to afford but now can't afford the purchase can only really, justifiably blame themselves. They had opportunity and made a decision. They were not tricked by their government. They don't want to accept fallibility. I've seen people praise government in high times (when they're well off) yet jeer the same government in low times (when their own mistakes have cost them the government created wealth).



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rapacity
 


Well, hats off to you sir. I'd say you have the notion of "Turn the other cheek" down pretty well in order to take a punch. I know it sounds macho and all but I've taken many a lump due to the temper that I have. Don't get me wrong I usually let things slide off my back. I talk things through when I can (if people will listen because I know if I let it get going there's no stopping) I can hold my own, I'm not Chuck Norris but I don't back down no matter the #. So yes, I've taken many a lump rather than take a hit. But I get your point.

Civil Wars are a gruesome affair aren't they. It's been many hundreds of years since you guys in the UK have seen such a thing "War of The Roses" and then The Royals vs The Parlimentaries if I remember correctly? Ours was a while ago, yet remains fresh in the minds of some in this country predominately those in the South. To correct myself I said a second Civil War in my previous post I should have said third by right. You see in The Revolutionary War the campaigns fought in the Carolinas (ie "The South") where fought mostly between Loyalist and Colonial Malitias of the area. So in essence that was realy our first Civil War. Neighbors were killing neighbors and that snowballed into ever increasingly worse vendettas.

As for the Second Civil War 1861-1865 the anger left over mostly lingers in the South. It's a bit of the fact that they lost and had the Federalist bootheal dug into their neck, (no pun intended) and the manner in which Sherman went about his campaign in the South by burning, pillaging, and raping. Lincoln should have never allowed such treatment of the Southern population no matter what the situation. And they should have done a better job of revitalizing the Southern economy after the war. The world believes today that the whole thing was over slavery when it wasn't even a war aim in the first place. Truth be told Lincoln only made it one when England and France began showing signs of swooping in for the kill after we had bled our forces out on both sides. It was a tactict used to gain the support of the populations of English and French citizens that would not support their country taking advantage of a nation trying to free men from bondage. Don't get me wrong I think that putting a man in chains is a vile thing but I just wanted to clear the air. The North wasn't as wholesome as it is shown these days.

But back to my point. For example my mother was once talking to a nice man that hailed from the great state of Soth Carolina. He was a tractor trailer driver and frequently made runs up to Michigan and back down into S.C. upon his return his boss (the owner of the company) would make sure that he stopped at a truck stop before entering his yard in order to have "That Yankee dirt washed off his rig, so it don't tarnish good southern soil!" (in his words). Now I'll tell you honestly southerners may become the butt of some jokes in the north hell even in the south they tell the same "Red Neck" jokes but it's in good fun and not realy directed at southerners but more towards the "Hill Folk." It's not the nicest thing but we harbor no real ill will towards them as so many of them do us. They still call us freaking "Yankee's" for Christ's sake, we just call them southern not "Johny Reb." But that's just the way things are so what can you do?





[edit on 23-3-2008 by lazy1981]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by lazy1981]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by lazy1981]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join