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.

 

Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

page: 17
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Censored1

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


I will call him a Socialist / Communist and half his cabinet is Socialist / Communist . Communism is the eventual outcome of Socialism in practice . Power hungry people want absolute power . He is not Patriotic to this country and how did that ever happen . His CHANGE is change America to Socialism /Agenda21/ Communism /NWO .George Soros has already made the comment that Obama is slow to change us to Socialism . Soros was unhappy about it .


Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Wall St. is booming.



At least that's what the heavily manipulated market tells you.

Wall Street has about as much to do with reality as natural favors do with Kool-Ade.


And your Obama narrative is EXACTLY the same narrative that was conjured up and sold by
the most watched, mainstream media news station in America, Fox News. Talk about MSM,
you are regurgitating it here line for line, be real to yourself.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Censored1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Censored1

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Censored1

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


I will call him a Socialist / Communist and half his cabinet is Socialist / Communist . Communism is the eventual outcome of Socialism in practice . Power hungry people want absolute power . He is not Patriotic to this country and how did that ever happen . His CHANGE is change America to Socialism /Agenda21/ Communism /NWO .George Soros has already made the comment that Obama is slow to change us to Socialism . Soros was unhappy about it .


Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Wall St. is booming.



At least that's what the heavily manipulated market tells you.

Wall Street has about as much to do with reality as natural favors do with Kool-Ade.


And your Obama narrative is EXACTLY the same narrative that was conjured up and sold by
the most watched, mainstream media news station in America, Fox News. Talk about MSM,
you are regurgitating it here line for line, be real to yourself.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Censored1 because: (no reason given)


Are you denying that Obama's main influences, mentors, and comrades are Communists? He wrote with an almost sodomite love in his book about Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, and Bill Ayers, three self-admitted communists. Hell, Obama's buddy Bill Ayers is a convicted terrorist.

Anybody who wants to check the facts will find that I am quite correct, both about Obama's red color and about the manipulation of the markets.
edit on 26-2-2013 by HattoriHanzou because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Well, first off, are you talking about a Revolution or a Civil War?

SOMEBODY will win a Civil War - by definition. It would be one group of citizens against another. Somebody (who is fighting who in your scenario? And why?) What is an issue grand enough to divide the citizens enough to take up arms against EACH OTHER?

If you are talking about a Revolution. where the people rise as one to take on their government, then I agree that would end messy for whoever started it.

What is the military doing in this Revolution? Are some members of the armed forces joining the people? Entire Units? A rag-tag fleet of rebel B-52 pilots bent on bombing Washington for lower taxes?

Are you expecting some States to pull away, and that the military based in that state would fight for that state? Keep in mind that Military Bases from all services are full of volunteers from across the country. I dont think a guy from Illinois based at Ft. Hood could be easily persuaded to attack Chicago.

No doubt there are a bunch of rightfully pissed off people out there, but they are intermingled with everybody else. There would be no Mason-Dixon line to make the fighting and the hating easy.

If the issue is wealth distribution, how do you see that scenario unfolding? Occupy Wall Street couldnt even manage to form a coherent message or stay focused for more than a few months.

The fact that all the government has to do is hint or wink about doing something about the 2nd Amendment or Gun Control and a certain portion of the population can be totally distracted from every other issue facing the country shows how little MOST people know what the real issues are that are facing the country.

What if they threw a war and nobody came?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I have no delusions about any calls for revolution because one mans liberator is another mans tyrant. Most of the people calling for change of a violent nature are not people I want anywhere near my rights.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
I have no delusions about any calls for revolution because one mans liberator is another mans tyrant. Most of the people calling for change of a violent nature are not people I want anywhere near my rights.


Well said...a Star for you, my friend...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


Absolutely awesome post. It made me laugh quite a bit, what I've been saying for a while but you know the population on here unfortunately gets younger and more idiotic by the day. I'm sure that by your calculations at least 80% of the posters that are saying a civil war would be possible are also obese or overweight.
Amazing.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
Given the absolute contempt for government by society today, I see no way for government to ultimately come out on top if a civil war were to erupt. I am sure they are aware of this. Whether or not they decide to chance it is another story. They seldom make good choices. There are politicians on the citizens side as well though. They are the ones screaming about protecting the Constitution.


___________________________________________________________

I'l start by saying I agree here.
Lets examine what the governments appearance would become...

One of being a rerun of Nazi Germany for starters, with all the World as a stage, and surely watching every detail, every minute.

The dollar would collapse, that is sure. Monetary institutions worldwide would be affected, and the petrodollar would cause worldwide turmoil. Recently China and Russia have made plans to drop the petrodollar, I think most of us have seen commentaries alluding to the possibility.

UN peace keepers would likely be called in, further jeopardizing the existence of the government.

Again the US government would be fragmented much as the Civil War, this time with not so recognisable boundaries. I'm thinking the Southern States would in all likelihood stand against the current administration much as the original Civil War, but with more Northern states attracted.

Politicians would align themselves, hoping to ride out the division and remain in their positions.

Many major industries and corporate entities would jockey for position in the emerging divided US, and 'US' would be a misnomer ultimately. There would be no 'United'. And many industries and corporations would Fail permanently.

I think then, it would be entirely up to the military to establish our government, or to collapse themselves.

These are but of a few effects we would likely face, there are a host more to consider.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by VariableConstant
 


LOL at the amount of stars your post got, this is the intelligence barrier I'm talking here. Those rich also control the money, food, gas, and just about every other switch as well. I'm sure it won't be to hard to tell a said army member, your family will be okay and they'll just turn a blind eye. Whys that you say? Well maybe because most military are there for their families well being in the first place not their neighbors.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
You've obviously no idea what Americans can do when they put their mind and all into something. You cannot comprehend because you're not American. We weren't born on one knee like most other countries.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I think it would align as 'Constitutionalists' verses the current government, and emerge as a 'Constitutional States', a different orthodox entity rather than the 'US' of old.
And return to laws provided in the Constitution. Ultimately that is what we are fighting for. Patriots want their country and its Constitution back in it's entirety. No other subverted institution will do.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Great post, nice to see some free thinkers around here. I should've just been a troll and spouted a bunch of stuff to get a ton of stars. You know like rich men can't fight wars or other dribble about Vietnam or Afghanistan and how their revolts have 'worked' (If living in poverty is 'working' which at that rate our population would be dropped by 70%+). I'd honestly like to see a uprising happen just to see how quickly it would be squashed and then how quickly certain said 'fellows' would lose their rights completely. I wonder if they've really thought this all out, you know, treason and all. An since these people are all 'lovers' of the constitution I think they should read what it says about treason:

'whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States'

I'm sure I'm going to be told that they're defending the constitution and that the government is the 'traitors' well I'm sorry but they'd be wrong, at least when the hammer dropped. So in short please please please do this, reality TV is a bit dull as of late and seeing these idiots try to pull this off will be like watching Snooki try to stay sober. I also don't think they've thought what this would do to gun control and things like that as well, but I suppose that's a story for another time, since at this point the Boogi man is more likely an enemy then our own government.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I am obese and out of shape,these are things that I can change in my life.
I have gone a full week without any Little Debbie snack cakes.I have been
drinking more water,eating more salads and fruits.I have lost about 3lbs so
far on my diet.
I WILL GET THIS WEIGHT OFF AND GET MYSELF FIT AND HEALTHY.
I am already getting back out on the shooting range and getting some much
needed practice.I would like to find out how I could get some boot-camp type
training for future use.
I am not so sure about another civil war, another revolution is more to my way
of thinking.People,sheeple, will take just so much abuse from a tryant government
before they finally act...that is a revolution,not a civil war! We the people won the


first revolution!
edit on 26-2-2013 by mamabeth because: added video



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It would require a coup at the top (ie, Operation Valkyrie Part Deux).



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I have a feeling the OP's intent is based on an anti-gun argument about the second amendment.

The OP has an obvious misunderstanding. An armed populace isn't to guarantee winning a civil war. It's to make the prospect of having one too horrifying to consider - with the outcome too dire even if you win.

Most of the things the OP mentions would cause severe infrastructure damage and/or depopulation. There isn't much point in winning a civil, or any, war if you obliterate the workforce and infrastructure. Otherwise, why not just nuke them?

The OP does make some very food arguments, however, for why - perhaps- we should have a lot less gun control than we have. If the citizenry can't at least have a fighting chance against it's government then something is wrong.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I believe the OP is incorrect about his premise for one simple reason: The workers of this country are the muscle that keeps it going. Without port workers, warehouse workers, refinery workers, farmers, and especially truckers, etc.... this entire country shuts down in three days. Think about it. No truckers? No nothing. No fuel, food, supplies, nothing. The old saying goes, "if you have it, it came on a truck." The government might be a fascist dictatorship, but they would not have a country to dictate or control. TPTB are mostly fat, pasty, rich, lazy pigs that don't know how to tie their own shoes, let alone supply themselves with the essentials they need.

I also seriously doubt most of our military people would be willing to wage full-scale biological or nuclear war on our own people, for any reason.

The US isn't so much a geographical area for TPTB to conquer, it is people. And those people, the very ones the OP talks about the government wiping out, are what keep this country moving and functioning. Who would win in a new civil war? That's easy. The people, no question. Shots need not even be fired.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


No,no,no,you did it wrong First you ask him to repeat the order,then you ask for it in writing then you approach your chain and claim you have been given an unlawful order.

Great though, I love it.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


The O/P is rather blithe and simplistic. The point of a government seeking control via force implies there has to be something they wish to control in first place, no?

If the populace is obliterated then there's nothing left to control or manipulate to meet your ends, right? ie. You wasted your resources on an unattainable end, you've killed your cash cow.

This so called civil war wouldn't be a singular deciive pitched battle, but an ever growing discontent. Remember Vietnam, right? Recall Afghanistan, yeh? Oppressive forces always lose in the long run.

Below is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation.



You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass






edit on 26-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos

edit on 26-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: more editing



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sajuek
I see this posted a lot, and I'm completely baffled as well as bemused by the shortsightedness of members who claim that the "Free Peoples of the USA" could win an armed conflict against the US government gone full tyrant mode.

Why do they think this?

It could win a civil war easily. Here's why.

Dirty bombs, smallpox & biological warfare
Russia and the USA are the only countries in the world who keep live samples of Smallpox (despite international outcries for them to be destroyed) and they aren't there just for show. I imagine that this, along with any other lovely they have waiting in a lab to unleash on the world would be put to full effect in the case of civil war.

Say, a particularly virulent strain of the Spanish Flu, airborne Ebola, Cholera introduced to all major rivers. Any of these, let alone all of them would completely decimate any effective fighting force in a week and people would run to the government in droves for a cure.


Any country that is in a full scale "War" with it's people and decided to use dirty bombs or biological weapons against it's own people would be wiped out rather quickly by the other world powers.

At least, if I were China, Russia or any other Super Power that wasn't necessarily aligned with the Corporate Capitalism of The United States, I'd swoop in and wipe the slate with the government the second it used weapons of mass destruction on it's own people.

End of story. USA Fail.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I saw something during 1999 bombing... Bad chances for hipothetical rabels...




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I beg to differ and suggest that you will reconsider once you read up on world history from the start of it until the present..

The history of the world is all about governments being overthrown by just a relative few. It's called guerrilla warfare.

You make the mistake of equating amount and type of weapons with the determination of those that fight against the status quo. Guerrilla warfare never requires the disgruntled masses to rise up in revolt. It only takes a few strategic moves. Certainly, many such moves have been crushed at some point along their course without achieving their goal, but frequently even that result brings changes in the existing power structure, usually toward a better understanding and working with the mood of the populace.

My point is not to suggest that all up-risings are to the betterment of the general population. Some are misguided in their ideologies and fail at a terrible cost to the populace and the country in general.

That result is actually proof that the main mass of the population need not be strongly involved in the destruction of the original government nor in the establishment of the replacement. It is also proof that the population was so disenchanted with the former government that they wanted a drastic change. But they fell victim to that old saying: "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it."



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join