It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Popular state sovereignty bills draw comparison to Civil War posturing

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:30 PM
Hello everyone. I am new, and have a different view.

There is a battle going on here, and it isn't succinctly political. Has anyone watched the cancelled series Jericho? Interesting commentary there.

The united states is an 'old fashioned' and inherently 'ill' beast. It was formed to provide benefit and mutual defence of the colonies (states) in a unified manner. The forces that engendered this unification no longer exist.

The racial paradigm has evaporated, as most 'Americans' are now part of one ethnic minority or another. So it is no longer a case of being 'us' and 'them'.

As previously stated, the cultural differences between states are now becoming painfully clear - especially in terms of religion. If you look at the religiously fanatical central states, you will see a xenophobic attitude that isn't present in the more cosmopolitan coastal / culturally exposed states. The best case study for this is New Orleans. A city that was as Cosmopolitan as they come. Destroyed, and left to rot. Many of you will have theories and opinions, but I believe it was simply because being 'different' was accepted as being normal there.

This cultural difference is one example, it is accompanied by many that are less obvious, but no less clear cut. This includes (most importantly) the idea of a truly 'free' economy as implemented (by design) by the founding fathers.

There are TWO unifying forces left that hold the USA (as we all know it) together.

1) The Monetary (For Profit) System
2) The Federal Government

I think there are four seperate areas of America appearing - The Central States (The Bible Belt / Tornado Alley), The Western States (California to Washington - Falsely Rich Land), The Southern States (Texas through to Mississippi and beyond), and the Eastern States (Banker Land). All with sectored heterogenous cultural matches, most with highly differing cultural values.

I don't think the USA is fracturing, I just think the tape covering the (already noted and obvious) chasms is falling off.

The Parallex.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:03 PM
Yes interesting all the comparisons to Lincoln during the Obama campaign.

If this movement picks up steam the true plans of the ruling elite may finally be revealed. Martial law would most definitely go into effect and we will finally get a chance to use those camps that have been built.

States have no way to protect themselves against the Federal Armed Forces. This could also be a way to usher in the NAU and the Amero as the solution to the turmoil purposefully created by a our rulers. Remember the Hegelian dialectic "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" all planned long ago.

Honest Abe Obama "a union divided cannot stand" will be seen as a protector of the good ole USA!

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Leo Strauss

And that is the real trick, the States do not have the manpower nor the material to defend against a Federal occupation. But the people of those do. Now that might seem to be an odd statement. So let's look at it closely.

Every state has a national guard of so many troops with limited access to military grade weapons such as M-16's, trucks, tanks and helicopters. The tanks and helicopters would be no match for M1 Abrams and Apache. States do however have State Troopers, County Deputies and Local LEO's that can be added as support. Many LEO's have SWAT type teams. But even on multiple fronts such as 15-20 States, it would be a David and Goliath situation unless all those state united their forces and coordinated an offensive. Then it would still be at least 5 to 1 odds against the States.

Now if you consider the people somehow managing to grow a pair and put forth true State pride against the Federal Government, then suddenly each State would begin to find equal or greater footing in a multi-front situation. While the firepower and equipment would still be lacking, there would be far more manpower and small arms against the superior equipment. Should the Federal Government step up to more sophisticated firepower such as surgical bombing sorties, then there would be major outrage against the Feds by more people in more states. The odds of a unified rag tag army rising would become very likely.

So would a rag tag army do well against the US Armed forces? Think of this. The total number of all active military, active reserves and inactive reserves is about 3.2 million personnel. If only 5% of the US population took up arms against the Federal government it would be roughly 15 million. 10% would be 30 million. There is no way to defeat that kind of odds using conventional warfare. Nuclear would be the only option to have a chance in hell of winning. If you consider nuking your own country as winning...

Again that all depends on the military siding with the Federal Government. Odds are that very few in the military would follow an order to wage total war against an uprising. Suppression yes, total warfare no, I do not think they would. Even if somehow compelled to do so, morale would be so low that it would be a weakened force. As the States/Civilian forces became emboldened, military bases would fall and become captured with stores of equipment upgrades.

Or think of it this way. How many battalions would it take to capture Chicago, Detroit or LA against just gang members that united to hold the city? There are 500-1500 men in a battalion.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:45 AM
Here's another thought, that I believe is more feasible to get the rest of the nation on the side of the Fed/under the Fed. And it's simple, it has worked twice in recent history. One was Pearl Harbor, the other was 9/11.
If they allow a "sovereignty state" to attack another state or Washington, they could easily implement Marshall Law on the United States. The only thing is, none of these "sovereignty states" would actually have attacked anyone. Government just has to drop a nuke or whatever. Instant reaction would one is one can be trusted...Many citizens would actually want Marshall Law, just for the sake of feeling safe. No questions asked. Well maybe questions would come 5 to 10 years down the road. But by that time, it is already too late.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in