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: 21
32
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
An armed revolution in USA will NOT win
why?
because there will be no winner
the states will end up divided
warlords will rise to power
and you will end up with another Africa

this is the reality and it gets ignored because it is not fun or heroic
if you were patriotic, if you loved your country, violent revolution would be the last option
last option as in "there is no option left but self-destruction"
because that is what it would be, self-destruction


There are many people who question the necessity for a Federal Government, and certainly its size and scope has expanded dramatically since the founding of the nation. It also has this tendency to always seek more power, to become larger, and to otherwise grow in any possible fashion.

People might be better off without having to support such a heavy burden that returns only questionable benefits, and at this point in time seems to exist mainly to transfer taxpayer wealth to the cronies of the political class.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

There are many people who question the necessity for a Federal Government, and certainly its size and scope has expanded dramatically since the founding of the nation. It also has this tendency to always seek more power, to become larger, and to otherwise grow in any possible fashion.

People might be better off without having to support such a heavy burden that returns only questionable benefits, and at this point in time seems to exist mainly to transfer taxpayer wealth to the cronies of the political class.


without the federal government, who will protect you against the likes not N.Korean and Iran?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

There are many people who question the necessity for a Federal Government, and certainly its size and scope has expanded dramatically since the founding of the nation. It also has this tendency to always seek more power, to become larger, and to otherwise grow in any possible fashion.

People might be better off without having to support such a heavy burden that returns only questionable benefits, and at this point in time seems to exist mainly to transfer taxpayer wealth to the cronies of the political class.


without the federal government, who will protect you against the likes not N.Korean and Iran?


Neither North Korea nor Iran present any credible threat against the USA at this time, and they never have.

Get serious.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Neither North Korea nor Iran present any credible threat against the USA at this time, and they never have.

Get serious.


at this time they don't because of the federal government

but what when the USA is in chaos and splintered?

edit: not to mention heavy weights like Russia and China
edit on 26-2-2013 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

There are many people who question the necessity for a Federal Government, and certainly its size and scope has expanded dramatically since the founding of the nation. It also has this tendency to always seek more power, to become larger, and to otherwise grow in any possible fashion.

People might be better off without having to support such a heavy burden that returns only questionable benefits, and at this point in time seems to exist mainly to transfer taxpayer wealth to the cronies of the political class.


without the federal government, who will protect you against the likes not N.Korean and Iran?


Neither North Korea nor Iran present any credible threat against the USA at this time, and they never have.

Get serious.


Agreed, they are not a threat, our sticking our nose in thier business repeatedly may someday soon make them a threat however. We have a bad habit of making our own enemies it seems.

Edit: Has anyone else noticed the OP, posted his delusional rant then never came back to defend it and left that up to others?


edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: Edit

edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: punctuation



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Neither North Korea nor Iran present any credible threat against the USA at this time, and they never have.

Get serious.


at this time they don't because of the federal government

but what when the USA is in chaos and splintered?

edit: not to mention heavy weights like Russia and China
edit on 26-2-2013 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)


Russia, China, neither one of these nations are threats either. I would imagine that after the breakup of the Federal government, there will be a sort of allied nuclear command that would retaliate against any attempt to invade, much like the CIS and the former Soviet Union.

Truth be told, the only people who actually need the Federal Government are people who wish to subsist on the tax dollars stolen from the American people.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Russia, China, neither one of these nations are threats either. I would imagine that after the breakup of the Federal government, there will be a sort of allied nuclear command that would retaliate against any attempt to invade, much like the CIS and the former Soviet Union.

Truth be told, the only people who actually need the Federal Government are people who wish to subsist on the tax dollars stolen from the American people.


there won't be an allied nuclear command after the breakup of the federal government
if there is one it will be Russia or China
they wont sit back and wait until the USA fights, splinters and regroups
they will be on front row sits since day zero



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


They have heat seeking drones watching the ground 24/7 and if they see you once, they suck your lungs out through your teeth.

At the very least, the resistance will need to be adapting technology like it is the only religion, and we are all priests.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Russia, China, neither one of these nations are threats either. I would imagine that after the breakup of the Federal government, there will be a sort of allied nuclear command that would retaliate against any attempt to invade, much like the CIS and the former Soviet Union.

Truth be told, the only people who actually need the Federal Government are people who wish to subsist on the tax dollars stolen from the American people.


there won't be an allied nuclear command after the breakup of the federal government
if there is one it will be Russia or China
they wont sit back and wait until the USA fights, splinters and regroups
they will be on front row sits since day zero


In the same way that the USA and Britain were able to contain the CIS?

Your statement is hard to believe, because there is no chance that the Chinese and the Russians would dare to make their way into Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and other places in which our nuclear capability resides. Nor would the Russians and Chinese be able to find, let alone neutralize, our ballistic missile submarines.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


Lol, you do realize, that neither nation has any interest of invading America. We have basically completely undetectable nuclear subs all over the ocean, they would be on extreme high alert if somthing like this happened, and it isnt worth moscow and Beijing burning to the ground to acomplish what exactly? They love us, we are great for eachother, we are an easy villain for them to demonize to justify their brutal regimes to their subjegated masses.

North korea and iran are no different, you dont really think these guys are not playing the same game with eachother do you? They are all just puppet masters of the political theater, they dont ever take eachother out, unless it is necessary, think Saddam, or ghadafi. ... these 2 were pos for a very long time, they were h owever useful for propaganda, so they were left in place, until they were no longer need, or useful, whichever it was first.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


They have heat seeking drones watching the ground 24/7 and if they see you once, they suck your lungs out through your teeth.

At the very least, the resistance will need to be adapting technology like it is the only religion, and we are all priests.


Drones are nifty but they have serious difficulties dealing with rain and snow. Cheap mylar emergency sleeping bags can totally defeat thermal imaging. Iran has not only figured out how to hijack our drones' control systems, but has published this information.

Drones are neat but they aren't invulnerable or all-powerful.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Better to fight than willingly enslave yourself.

Guerilla war is great...it slowly chips away on your enemy until their resources are depleted, they turn on themselves demanding answers, and ultimately lessons are learned. Look at Vietnam...it still exits, fighting worked for them, right?


the difference is that back then it was clear who you were and whom you were fighting
also the USA is not Vietnam, Texas is bigger than Vietnam


Saying Vietnam is smaller than Texas actually reinforces my point.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Texas would be less threatening than Montana, which is full of both mountains and irascible, independent-minded folks.

And just imagine Appalachia - they've been itching for a rematch for a century and a half now.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


They have heat seeking drones watching the ground 24/7 and if they see you once, they suck your lungs out through your teeth.

At the very least, the resistance will need to be adapting technology like it is the only religion, and we are all priests.


Drones are nifty but they have serious difficulties dealing with rain and snow. Cheap mylar emergency sleeping bags can totally defeat thermal imaging. Iran has not only figured out how to hijack our drones' control systems, but has published this information.

Drones are neat but they aren't invulnerable or all-powerful.


If we can all be preists in the religion of technology, we will deserve to win and we will win. Otherwise we will loose. and die.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

In the same way that the USA and Britain were able to contain the CIS?

Your statement is hard to believe, because there is no chance that the Chinese and the Russians would dare to make their way into Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and other places in which our nuclear capability resides. Nor would the Russians and Chinese be able to find, let alone neutralize, our ballistic missile submarines.


what ballistic missile submarines?during a revolution the federal government is starved and the USA economy is nonexistent
do you really think that a splintered and broke group of states with no common body will have the capability to project power like the current USA government?
most people will be starving and you are talking about maintaining a fleet of submarines?
I think you missed the point in that I'm talking hypothetically what would happen if an armed revolution would split the country
you are not making sense because I'm talking about possible outcome in a hypothetical scenario where the USA is a very different USA than it is right now
yet you counter by pointing out the current USA capabilities

I'm not saying any country will dare attack the USA on it's current form



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I would agree, vietnam is smaller than every state in the nation besides hawaii and a couple of the smaller newengland states.

Yet the great and all powerful American military was unable to defeat acountry with less than a quarter our population, 100 years behind us in tech, and literally starving to death, oh ya and they had absolutely no manufacturing base of any type. Every weapon had to come down the hochimin trail, which was bombed by us none stop everyday for years. Yet these people managed to make it happen.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Texas would be less threatening than Montana, which is full of both mountains and irascible, independent-minded folks.

And just imagine Appalachia - they've been itching for a rematch for a century and a half now.


Indeed, the moonshine boys are tough cookies.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


The real mind-blower here is that there are lots of people now talking about revolting against the Federal Government, something that I would never expected to hear just a few short years ago.

The Obama administration should sit up and take notice, dial their commie-plan-ometer back to 0, and realize that this would be an event that would again change the world.

People were relatively content even despite seeing their wealth stolen through ever higher taxes, and wasted on cronyism. This was something that had been accepted by almost everybody, but go after the guns in any serious manner and there will be chaos the likes of which the world has never seen.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I would agree, vietnam is smaller than every state in the nation besides hawaii and a couple of the smaller newengland states.

Yet the great and all powerful American military was unable to defeat acountry with less than a quarter our population, 100 years behind us in tech, and literally starving to death, oh ya and they had absolutely no manufacturing base of any type. Every weapon had to come down the hochimin trail, which was bombed by us none stop everyday for years. Yet these people managed to make it happen.


Good points you raised there, also there's the added bonus of any defectors/rogues from the federal armies who'd be willing to stage a coup/junta.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

I would agree, vietnam is smaller than every state in the nation besides hawaii and a couple of the smaller newengland states.

Yet the great and all powerful American military was unable to defeat acountry with less than a quarter our population, 100 years behind us in tech, and literally starving to death, oh ya and they had absolutely no manufacturing base of any type. Every weapon had to come down the hochimin trail, which was bombed by us none stop everyday for years. Yet these people managed to make it happen.


my point was that it would not be a clear south vs north scenario
any major city if left unsupervised will turn into crime slums, ghettos
in this regard the military would just isolate cities and let them self destroy
what I mean is that your main concern wont be the federal army but
the local gangs and criminals




top topics



 
32
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join