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: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SerratedSoul
 


I just don't see a good ending with armed revolution
if anything it would be peaceful protest
I wonder how many of the armed revolution advocates dismissed or ridiculed OWS
or how many of them critique and insult anonymous
it would be an interesting statistic and will be very telling
if what they truly want is change or violence




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 

When Iran and Israel go at it that will be WW-3. Ezekiel 38 .



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SerratedSoul
The Pacific and Atlantic oceans are no longer a great obstacle or of great protection in this day and age. You can literally get from one side of the world to the other in a matter of hours. Do any of you seriously think the likes of China or Russia or any other considerable or even not very considerable world power will not strike while the iron is hot and take advantage of the chaos?


The Atlantic and Pacific are HUGE obstacles. Providing enough to deliver and sustain a force across an ocean is huge. To give you an idea you are pushing between 4 to 20 support people for every combatant (called "tooth-to-tail ratio"). So for a company size element (a small one is around 80 people) you need 320 to 1600 people to enable them to fight.

To make it more interesting: what the Hell would they want? If the US is fighting another civil war the US is in a weakened enough state that no foreign intervention will be necessary. Maybe they want that sweet, drought-ridden Middle America farmland (you know, like the original Red Dawn) with diminished crop yields? Or the Excel-driven wealth of Wall Street? Maybe the industrial epicenters of Flint and Detroit? Maybe they want us because all us Americans are like leprechauns and catching us will grant them wishes and gold.

Plus wars break things. They break infrastructure, people, and wealth. Civil wars break a lot of things, because there is nothing civil about it and no one side trying to capture strategic objectives. I don't think China and Russia are sitting around thinking, "You know what we don't have enough of? Poor people. We need more poor people. Hey, America is weak, let's go get us some poor people!"

By-the-way, the only way you are getting from one side of the world to the other in a matter of hours is either by supersonic jet or by rocket. Both are energy intensive operations. A sealift will take weeks to months, and airborne resupply will take days to weeks in a trans-continental run.

So yeah, other countries jumping in ain't gonna happen. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.



Do you not think there will be offers of foreign alliances or help made to the revolutionary peoples of America against the government tyrants or vice versa? Some will read this and say, "NO! Never will we accept outside help! This is an American matter!", but exactly how cohesive would the revolutionary peoples of America be? They could very well be broken into many factions, some of which WOULD accept that help and those alliances, and that opens up a whole other hornets nest: Who can you actually trust among these foreign entities who have come in under the guise of "ally"? I don't think people in this thread have given serious thought and consideration to any and all scenarios/outcomes concerning a possible revolutionary/civil conflict in real time. Finally, how well would our "great" U.S. military industrial complex handle fighting, in this present day, a full fledged World War and Civil/Revolutionary War SIMULTANEOUSLY?


Low-level partisan support, maybe. Like arms shipments. Nothing major though, because somebody inside the US will still control the nuclear deterrent. Minutemen and Tridents don't just disappear because there is a civil war and any attempt to secure them by a foreign power runs the risk of retaliation.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


The people can't win against the government in "full on tyrant mode".

That being said, the government can't go into "full on tyrant mode". Why? Because public opinion is a very key thing in the world today. United States is THE key player in nearly all world relations on the global stage. It is because of our allies that we have been able to progress to where we are in power today.

Secondly, if the American government decides to starting using nukes and chemicals weapons on their own land, what is the point of even fighting anymore? If the land is uninhabitable and the resources are no longer obtainable, modern view is that land is useless and no one should give a damn.

So, if America decided to go this route, if the government convinced the volunteer military to use such tactics against American people (lol in and upon itself), they would be destroying their next egg and turning every world power against them in a single instant. That is why it will not happen and if a revolution, not a civil war, were to break out - the American people would stand on an even keel with the government just as the south did during the Civil War.

That was was not won as handily as some people seem to think, despite what stories they have been told.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Something else for some of you mental juggernauts to consider since you're all such unbridled geniuses when it comes to the orchestration and implementation of a revolution:

The first order of any revolution should be how it addresses any revolution against it.

Let's say you ride up to Washington on some golden stallion, and yell out that you've had enough of all the corrupt politics, and impressed with your golden stallion, everyone abdicates, rolls over and goes home leaving you in power.
You lose no time in rearranging how things work in the country, and within a few days, you've hammered out your version of paradise on earth.

The very next day, someone else with a golden stallion shows up unhappy about your changes.
What are you going to do?
... or, what are you going to do to prevent other golden stallions from showing up at all?

Are you going to take away all the golden stallions in the country?
Are you going to outlaw golden stallions?
Are you going to set up checkpoints and strip searches to ensure that no one is smuggling or planning on smuggling golden stallions?

How are you going to react to the very same tactics you used to enact a successful revolution when those very same tactics are used against you?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Russia would back who ever would bring their perception of stability,Absolutely I can shoot an AK or a Dragunov. North Korea would be stupid enough to show up if they had sealift.China would begin to secure the far east,Not America.
The UN?

Maybe the idea of synthetic beings has come to fruition,That would work. Clones built for war.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Um, that's kind of the point of elections: all government is replaceable. So instead ushering people off to the guillotine we can just toss them out of office.

I think the problem is that electoral system is on a positive feedback-loop, so every new political thing is just a copy of the thing we had before.

Violent revolution is entirely unnecessary because we can replace the entire government every 2 to 6 years, the problem is that the vicious cycle needs to stop and people are out of ideas to disrupt it (remember Ron Paul not becoming President or even a significant Congressional figure?).



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Um, that's kind of the point of elections: all government is replaceable. So instead ushering people off to the guillotine we can just toss them out of office.

And you seriously think that works? You must have missed the GOP primary in Iowa last year. Tell me again how counting all the ballots in a secure location with no accountability and then magically coming up with a different winner than was predicted by all reliable polling agencies is an indicator that we have free and fair elections?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Um, that's kind of the point of elections: all government is replaceable. So instead ushering people off to the guillotine we can just toss them out of office.

And you seriously think that works? You must have missed the GOP primary in Iowa last year. Tell me again how counting all the ballots in a secure location with no accountability and then magically coming up with a different winner than was predicted by all reliable polling agencies is an indicator that we have free and fair elections?


The GOP is a private club. Like the NRA or Sierra club. You will not find a two-party system enshrined in the Constitution or the law. The only reason it gets public funds to do whatever because people like you don't tell your local legislature (you know the person who represents you at the state level; do you even know their name without looking it up?) that you believe public funds shouldn't pay for the elections of private clubs (mine ignored me, but I told her anyway).

Why is this important? BECAUSE ALL ELECTIONS ARE STATE AND LOCAL. There is no such thing as a Federal Election. A state decides how the elections will be done for their citizens, even for Federal people like the President and Senator.

So unless you're getting in the face of your local electoral body you have nobody to blame but yourself.

'Golly gee, the private club was doing its own thing. A travesty of democracy I tells you!'

Lame response, bro. Lame.

If your boy was so hot couldn't he run third-party and win?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


How do you know whether or not I contact my representatives? How do you even know what state I live in? Lame response bro, lame.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


Because of your reaction. Clearly you don't understand how elections operate or else you wouldn't have come up with such a response about the GOP and Iowa. Maybe the case could be made concerning the election of 1960; but whatevs, you missed it.

It's like saying "airplanes fly because of their high octane fuel".

And I correct you, "airplanes fly because of the Bernoulli principle"

Then you say, "I totally knew that! How do you know that I don't know?"

"Because you were wrong to begin with."



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Please stop trying to insult my intelligence. Seriously. I am not sure who you are trying to respond to, but it doesn't make sense. After the revolution, the constitution will be kept the way it has been ..... I mean what are you trying to say? We are revolting against a government that looks at the Constitution as a piece of paper, and not something that you live and die by.

Nothing needs to be changed. It needs to be left alone.

---

It's hard enough to keep my 22-year-old ignorant attitude in check without you provoking me. Especially since I'm proud of my accomplishments.

You're one of the few that seems not to know what you are talking about.

---

The only change i can think of at that moment i would request to be implemented after the revolution is 2 - 4 year term limits for ALL government positions ( including current lifetime positions ). Also, reverse the president's executive order ability.

What if someone brings another golden stallion, or whatever you were saying? What did we do after the Revolution in the 1700s to loyalists? We killed them, jailed them, or exiled them. However, i doubt any of that will be necessary. Very few things will be changed. The problem is the government ignoring the Constitution.
edit on 25-2-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Insiders - that's how this administration and gov't is brought down. Who actually likes these people? Who's going to stop them from getting rid of these people?

I'm sure the top people treat their "servants" like # - the same way they treat the rest of us americans.

Karma is ugly.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


If you doubt what I'm suggesting - just take a look-see at the Hagel and Brennan confirmation hearings flor the DOD, and CIA - those men don't want those jobs, they know the administration and gov't is corrupt and unpopular.. They look like dead zombies. Forced to take the positions.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


It would be brutal and protracted. A bunch of rabble without modern weapons have been bogging Afghanistan down hard core. America would be harder than Nam to pacify.

A bunch of sissy liberal tarts writing about the federal government using chem / bio / nuclear here at home. Barely worth reading let alone arguing about. I guess we will probably find out soon, though - when Obama gives the confiscation orders, that's the signal.
edit on 25-2-2013 by HattoriHanzou because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Aha.
Brilliant.

As far as attitudes go, are you saying you lack the facility to be held accountable for your own actions, all over some silly words on a computer screen? What happens when you're the leader of this new revolutionary government you dream of and someone says lots of things you don't like directly to your face?

Anyway, so, when nothing changes, and the very same people (different names and faces of course) hold office, leveraging their power positions (as politicians have always done for thousands of years across countless political systems) for their own personal benefit while paying lip-service to the whole political charade, what then?

Another other other 'nother revolution?

History has shown us there is no bloodless 'easy' answer to tyranny.
Often enough, the surest answer against tyranny is to replace it with another tyranny as insurance against the rise of; warlords, gangs, and other affiliations seizing powers where the collapse of law and accountability to positions suddenly vacated after the collapse of the old regime leaves power vacuums.
Political climate stabilized; replacement tyranny can then be relaxed by degrees, eventually ushering in whatever golden age of prosperity someone dreams of.

How many of you have read your Machiavelli, studied Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, given study to works like The Republic by Plato, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, Ethics by Aristotle, Civil Disobedience by Thoreau, as well as the prolific works and writings of John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and many others including given study to other revolutions both failed and successful such as the Russian Communist Revolution and it's eventual collapse, The French Revolution (which U.S. emulated and looked to for historical blueprint as inspiration and guidance), The slave rebellion of Spartacus in Rome, The Chinese Communist Revolution of Mao, The Cuban Revolution, or, pretty much anything notable from This LIST of Revolutions and rebellions throughout History?

There's a lot more than grabbing the muskets, waving some homespun flag, and marching on to glory.

History offers a great deal of lessons to be learned as it applies to both failed and successful actions against governments by their citizens, including initially successful campaigns that turned out to be far worse than the platforms that were replaced, like the wildly popular and seemingly successful reforms and changes in government enacted by a certain fellow all starting in 1919 with a little political party then known as the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Look also at the great Arab Spring just recently. What mistakes were made there? What successes?
How about the 1979 Iranian revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini?

Rarely, if ever, do I ever see many mentioning or attempting to take lessons from all the past successes and failures of other actions.
Sure there's some flag waving and overly naive completely adorable mentions of ragged farmers casting off the might of the British Empire, but, it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

So, you want a revolution just so you can keep everything the same, or turn back the clock just a little bit?
If voting isn't doing the trick, what's keeping you from running for office, starting with a local city position and working your way up the ladder to county, state, etc?

Further, if anyone has trouble understanding the analogy of the Golden Stallion, they've no business attempting any play on the jungle gym of politics where a keen facility for metaphor and analogy is the difference between holding office and sitting on the outside complaining about those that do.



edit on 25-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


Why not?
It's happened before in other countries.
Why couldn't it happen here?
All it takes is the right incentive.
Read a History book.
I will admit it probably won't happen here.
But it could.
I think it needs to be done.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


They treat their servants pretty good, actually. I knew a guy who was a Marine that was assigned to Clinton's (Bill) security detail. Clinton (while President) took the time to hand-write a birthday card for him. When I worked in DC I also knew people who were on Clapper's staff. I also know people who work for Panetta (one of his foundations in Monterey). I've never heard anything bad said about them. One of their skills is the ability to network, and they got ahead through their connections. People persons.

The only bad stuff I've ever heard where concerning Congress and Senate from low-level staff, and it was concerning their chief advisor.

I think a violent revolution is unneeded if we took a page from their book: network. That is us poor folks find a way to abscond on the existing globalism grid and rely on each other. We're the ones who make the world go 'round. It is our labors that cook the meals, pave roads, fix the cars, install the telephone lines. We are only subject to elite whims because we rely on their capital (fiat or otherwise) to mark the economy. They happened to network into a position that commands that currency, which is why governments are so quick and furious to stamp out any competition to that. I believe Bitcoins and precious metals will do more to correct a system more than any AR-15.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if millions of people in US could have all their needs met by using an alternative currency. People would become untaxable (since the money they have does not really exist in terms of the law), and maybe the IRS could fuss over wanting to tax on services rendered (which is legal, but the burden of proof is on them).

Only when we have ownership over our labors are we free. As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas, "a gun is not an argument."

We will only be free if we stick together and borrow the elites best moves: networking people.

The signal, my friend, is the warm outstreched hand to shake at the start of a business transaction.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Never mind why. Just accept they are deluded.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


How could we emulate the French revolution when it was in 1789, after the US was founded in 1787?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join