Real Talk - American Civil War

Having read what the op had written, and giving it much thought the following can be stated:

Civil war is a messy thing, far more than any other armed conflict. It will split families apart, and often pit brother against brother. It tears countries apart, and are very messy, unlike any other war or armed conflict that we see, it is one of the far worse of all wars.

People in this country often talk about taking military action against the federal government, a few have in the past attempted such, when they feel that their rights are trampled on or taken away. And to that end while it is the right of the people to demand redress, before any shot is fired or any act of violence the question must be asked as to why such is needed and or required.

While we, the citizens may know the answer to such, if we look back at history, with any and every revolution or civil war, there is always a declaration, and in that declaration, the arguments and reasons for these actions are given. The reason for this is 2 fold, one is it lets the rest of the world know why such actions are being taken, and to gather the public support, of which it is the latter that is required in any civil war. If the general public does not support such actions, then if those who would advocate civil war or armed rebellion, and they are not convienced, then it is doomed to fail.

The second part and this is the one that is the most messy of all, what happens after all of the dust has settled and everything is said and done. In times past, with every other civil war, and history is loaded with such, there are backlashes and cruelty that is seen and often inflictedon neighbors and those who are precieved as the enemy. If you look at the numerous conflicts in Africa, where civil wars have taken off, it is brutal to the general population.

In all of the discussions, when there are uprisising of the people in the US, there lacks several things, one is a list of grievences that pass the test that would convience 2 groups of people, the first is other countries, and the other is the very people that they are stating that they are wanting to help. The other is a leader(s) who are willing to stand up and die for their belief. Such has not been seen in this country since the late 1960's, when social change was brought about by one person, and his message still rings through today.

Before they will be able to confiscate the guns they are going to have to raise the standard of living for the majority of Americans. It is not until Americans are convinced (will take a long, long time) the government is acting in their best interests alone that they will have any chance of success.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I have actually put some thought into that (a new declaration) I believe it's in my Intro thread.

We need something like that and a new continental congress to get things rolling.

Here Is the link for a new declaration of independence

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Panic2k11

I agree in part but am not sure that you can bank on that. Russia was royally f# by the US going into the Perestroika. One needs to understand that the US has its fingers into all the cakes IMF, World Bank if the US defaults I can't see that gigantic debt be simply forgiven, especially by emerging nations.

Russia was controlled by the West because Russian leadership wanted Western capital. If the US collapses and the states don't require anything from the rest of the world, they cannot be controlled except by a military aggression. I doubt any country wants to miltarily invade any of the states to make them accept the debt of the defunct USA. The creditor nations may be shocked, but there is little they can do about it.

In fact even now the USA can literally wipe its debt out through monetary inflation, which is probably on the cards anyway, and there is little anyone can do about it.

This also raises the issue of security and costs of maintaining the nuclear arsenal, we all saw what happened in the Soviet Union.

Yes, that would be a serious concern for the rest of the world. If the several states decide not to hold on to the nukes and missiles of the USA on their territories, the rest of the world may have to fund their dismantlement.

These and even internal security considerations like Florida declaring war on Cuba (example) or northern parts of the US going to Canada and in the South to Mexico.

Of course there are several possibilities. If the USA ceases to exist the transition will not be a smooth affair.

more Americans still believe in the constitution than do not

Your problem is you assume everyone interprets the constitution the same way you do.

Your "constitution loving" states probably violate the constitution in many ways like banning gay marriage or abortion or interracial marriage. Not everyone thinks that the second ammendment means every delinquent in America should have giant arsenals.

Originally posted by dave_welch
There would have been no benefit in helping Iraqis against the US.

Why? Since it can't be because you think Iraq had nothing to offer to its benefactors, it must be because you think the war was not winnable for Iraq.

However, if another country, say China, were to help the resistance, they would be in a good position to set they're appointed people up in the new government.

Sure, if the resistence wins. What if the resistence loses and is successfully suppressed by the government swiftly? Where would those supporting the resistence stand with the US government?

The more people see it taking place, the more people that will want to act against it, that's how revolutions start.

Yes. However, I doubt revolutions start when a representative government attempts to enforce a law.

Yes, it can happen that even a democratically elected government is not tolerable to a minority and they bring about a revolution. But I doubt they will be waiting for the government to start enforcing the laws enacted that they vehemently disagree with.

If there is going to be any revolution, it will start as soon as the law is passed, not after they start making arrests.

reply to post by CB328


No, the problem is;

The Charters of Freedom were written, with out room for interpretation. They are "self-evident truths", as in; We hold these truths to be self-evident, meaning, not open to interpretation, because it is so obvious, it is clearly, self evident...




It was greatly debated, for that very reason, that it not be open to interpretation.

reply to post by Observor

Russia was controlled by the West because Russian leadership wanted Western capital. If the US collapses and the states don't require anything from the rest of the world, they cannot be controlled except by a military aggression.

What the F would make the individual states of the US be in such a different position one of the independent regions after the Soviet collapse ?

The problem would be even greater to handle in the US, most of states have no experience beyond dealing with the Federal government and are utterly dependent of it (by design, their were never intended to get into such a situation).

I know that we are using imagination but there is no way in that a breakdown of the US is ever viable without a very bloody civil war (that is also why the gun issue has become so relevant, people have began to understand were they are at in regards to future expectations). In any case I think we would first have a cue coup d'état (a putsch, or an overthrow) before it reaches that state and the outcome will not be much different that what we have in power today, it would probably be a military coup. Kennedy was very afraid of that after the bay of pigs and during the Cuban missile crisis (this is documented), consider the situation then and now in relation to the public support of the government and see why people are worried and even fomenting it.

Many external forces would benefit from a US collapse, some have been working very hard to get to that stage, but none have worked harder at it than the internal forces that guide the national policies.

Counterpoint: if the majority of armed dissidents opposing the govt moved to Texas or Idaho then those forces are concentrated which is a strategic advantage in that zone as there is strength in numbers on the one hand but it also makes it easier for a large opposing force in a war to cut off supplies to your area and starve you out (ie jewish ghettos in poland). Divide (separate) and Conquer.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Counterpoint: if the majority of armed dissidents opposing the govt moved to Texas or Idaho then those forces are concentrated which is a strategic advantage in that zone as there is strength in numbers on the one hand but it also makes it easier for a large opposing force in a war to cut off supplies to your area and starve you out (ie jewish ghettos in poland). Divide (separate) and Conquer.

In a gorilla war concentration of forces is bad. And since atm we are out gunned it will have to be gorilla (at first,at least)

You second point is my frlirat point from page one. If everyone moves to one state to fight then the feds can just declare that state is at war with them and allows them to Iraqis bomb the place.

With "collateral damage" blamed on the revolution .

Internet will also be important for the cause.

reply to post by Panic2k11

What the F would make the individual states of the US be in such a different position one of the independent regions after the Soviet collapse ?

Making new debt is not the same as being made accountable for the existing debt of the defunct state.

Regarding the rest of you post, I already admitted that a dissolution of the US is not going to be a smooth affair. Many things are possible and it could be worse than what it is now, but the component states becoming accountable for the US debt is not one of them. I was only making an academic observation, not offering that point as an incentive for dissolving the union.

Originally posted by CB328

more Americans still believe in the constitution than do not

Your problem is you assume everyone interprets the constitution the same way you do.

Your "constitution loving" states probably violate the constitution in many ways like banning gay marriage or abortion or interracial marriage. Not everyone thinks that the second ammendment means every delinquent in America should have giant arsenals.

I think it said something about "abel" people being armed, which I'm going to assume means physically and emotionally abel.

As far as abortion goes as a right, is killing a child because its inconvenient for you really a right? I know there are circumstance involving rape or death of the mother that have precedent.

Gays are people too and should have rights.

Because a person has an arsenal does it make him a nutjob?

Interracial marriage, you obviously are not American
Bill

Originally posted by CB328

more Americans still believe in the constitution than do not

Your problem is you assume everyone interprets the constitution the same way you do.

Your "constitution loving" states probably violate the constitution in many ways like banning gay marriage or abortion or interracial marriage. Not everyone thinks that the second ammendment means every delinquent in America should have giant arsenals.

This is one of the most odd comments Ive seen here. So you believe that constitution loving means you ban gay marriage, abortion, interracial marriage, etc.. but hand guns out to delinquents? Where did you draw this conclusion? Constitutionalists and/or Libertarians don't care about pressing their individual beliefs concerning those things on others or legislating concerning them. The interracial marriage thing.. do you get out of the house much or speak to anyone who is "constitution loving"? Im being serious... as this is such a very bizarre comment. I'm in an interracial marriage, have interracial kids, own guns, am very pro 2nd, dont care if you get an abortion ( get as many as you want for all I care.... you pay for them and accept responsibility for your own actions), I dont care who marries who... and Id say that you would see me as "constitution loving". Such VERY odd thoughts in your post.

de·lin·quent
/diˈliNGkwənt/
Adjective
(typically of a young person or that person's behavior) Showing or characterized by a tendency to commit crime, particularly minor crime.

Our laws do not allow young people to own arsenals. Also, do you think that a minor crime by a young person should ban them for life from ever owning a firearm or exercising select rights you have decided they arent worthy of? A young person CAN be violent with a gun which is not a minor crime. If he or she commits a violent crime with a firearm, yet cant legally buy or own one.. all of this is already against the law. I dont see what you mean other than you do not realize this isnt legal in the first place. You dont know this.... seriously? Constitution loving doesnt mean lawless ( or religious.. IM not religious and know MANY constitution loving Americans who are not religious) and the constitution loving issue you have doesnt mean that those who you spit this label at are the genesis of the gun issue you seem to be having. You should lay it where it belongs, really contemplate personal responsibility and where this comes into the issues we face as a country.

I'm honestly not being "mean" to you. Not intending to, anyway. I am just baffled sometimes as it seems like some either have communication issues, simply want to argue and throw out nonsensical things like you posted, have NO understanding of what the meanings of the words and concepts they use are, or are truly completely removed from reality.

Originally posted by CB328

more Americans still believe in the constitution than do not

Your problem is you assume everyone interprets the constitution the same way you do.

Your "constitution loving" states probably violate the constitution in many ways like banning gay marriage or abortion or interracial marriage. Not everyone thinks that the second ammendment means every delinquent in America should have giant arsenals.

The constitution is pretty easy to interpret. The declaration of independence is easier.

I am pro legal bound same sex unions.
I am pro abortion ( though I think it will soon be a moot point )
I am pro drugs
I am pro guns
I am pro religion
I am pro constitution

I am pro getting rid of this system and instituting a truly agreeable society

The problem is that both sides are absolutely 100% right......in their eyes! There is no room for compromise on this issue. At this point, the only way to avoid a civil uprising is to allow Texas and the rest of the states that wish to succede to do so peacefully.

Keep in mind, there is way more going on here besides the gun issue. That was just the straw breaking the camels back. Even if they cave and let us keep our guns, there are still many other issues in which Obama and TPTB have become tyrants that disregard the Constitution whenever it suits them.

The choice is their's; allow unsatisfied states to peacefully succede or fight Americans on American soil.