Civil War / Revolution. Which is it?

Don't embrace ignorance. In the event of riots, Federalized National Guardsmen are shipped from out of state to enforce martial law and curfews. They are not put into a position to "Shoot their own families'.

There will not be a "civil war" or "revolution" in America unless all the power goes out, and the food supply starts to vanish from the shelves.

Even then the military has robot bombers that can strike from 50,000 feet.
They would use this and blame the explosions on the "insurgents"

They would plant people into any revolutionary faction to spread distrust and misinformation like they did with Cointelpro and the again when the militia's were getting support. One can't ignore the devestating impact the Oklahoma City bombing had on the reputation and attraction of militia's.

Take Waco as a micro example of what American law enforcement and military will do in the event of any kind of uprising. In that case, nobody committed any crime, until the ATF raided the place, shot people up, then held them siege for over 50 days. Then they murdered over 50 men, women and children with CS gas, flash bangs, and automatic weapons fire.

Now take into account there is 11 million illegal immigrants in the US who would gladly accept a citizenship and a pay check to become informants and combatants against any uprising.
Same thing happened in our previous civil war with Irish immigrants.

A clarification on our Civil War, it wasn't a question of voting, it was a question of Lincoln calling on states to raise an army to use force to push his viewpoint on the people. He didn't explore every avenue of diplomacy and did not give our fledgingly democracy time to accept his new vision for the country, he chose armed violence which enflamed the people of the nation.
Even the people he called on to fight for his ideals turned around and fought against the federal government.

Originally posted by LostInAMelody
There wil simply be no civil war or revolution. It is impossible to lead any of them against the current goverment. Haven't you read Grapes of Wrath, 1984 or Brave New World, and We.

It is impossible to overthrow the present government.

By shear force, yes. But not via treachery from high ranking insiders.

Our government is supposed to serve the people, and it's gotten to the point where the people are serving the government.

I think it's time our government got served--with a reality check (I'm thinking vote the bastards out)! Our ELECTED officials need to start reading and actually obeying the Constitution! And we Americans need to educate ourselves as to our Constitutional rights.

I think Ron Paul is about the only Congressman out there who actually goes by the Constitution...I keep thinking Tom Tancredo might be another one....

[edit on 5/8/2005 by Amethyst]

Originally posted by Amethyst
Our government is supposed to serve the people, and it's gotten to the point where the people are serving the government.

Not be rude, but it has always been the case that the people serve the government. "You need me" is the rallying cry of all tyrants, even democratically elected ones. The big difference is, the scam was much more subtle until the Whig party took power (Lincol was a Republican on paper only. He continued the disastrously stupid policies the Whigs had pushed). It's been blatant since then, but most people prefer not to admit they've been scammed. It's much more emotionally comfortable to repeat the same old lies they've been taught all their lives and just fall in line.

Originally posted by Amethyst
I think it's time our government got served--with a reality check (I'm thinking vote the bastards out)!

They'll just be replaced with new bastards. We need to think more about eliminating the fundamentally flawed institution altogether rather than simply a change of thieves.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Our ELECTED officials need to start reading and actually obeying the Constitution! And we Americans need to educate ourselves as to our Constitutional rights.

I think Ron Paul is about the only Congressman out there who actually goes by the Constitution...I keep thinking Tom Tancredo might be another one....

Ron Paul is one in 10 thousand. In general, it's not reasonable to expect that people who are willing to do anything they can get away with to grab power will restrain themselves voluntarily once they get it. Ron Paul, like Jefferson, is the exception, not the rule. Jefferson came to power in the age of reason when evidence and argument could still win the debate. Ron Paul is fighting in the age of faith, when the vast majority will mindlessly parrot what they've been repeatedly told without any critical thought.

The current generations are more technically skilled, but otherwise just as stupid, if not more so, than the uneducated masses of old.

Violence?
What would it take for massive, large-scale violence to occur in the USA? A convergence of the same types of events that were happening during the Greate Depression. Violence, many historians agree, was only prevented by the intervention of FDR with the New Deal.

Some things they don't teach in school about that time period that is relevant to understanding today include the fact that because workers had had no recourse in court settings there was increasing violence in the Mining and Railroad industries. The Autoworkers were johnny-come-latelies who rode the ocean of blood left from the earlier martyrs to the labor unions. (Sorry, I grew up on these stories.) The thing to remember about the Labor Wars of the 19th and early 20th centuries is that they were outgrowths of policies put in place because of (failed) Reconstruction and the Gilded Age.

The worship of oligarchs like the Rockefellers and Carnegie caused a dearth of social problems. History has already proven that relying solely on the Churches to provide for the poor was disproven repeatedly from the end of the Civil War until the New Deal.

Why am I emphasizing the New Deal? The New Deal is the key to the why people will actually rise up against the government if it is dismantled. If the safety nets continue to disappear, people will feel they have nothing to lose and they will risk more than they would normally.

Are you familiar with the idea of the Company Store? Walmart is recreating this abomination. Basically, you have to get everything from the company and all of your credit comes from the company - even the banks are owned to some degree by the company. This was standard operating procedure by both the Mining companies and the Railroad Companies. These companies made virtual slaves of their employees. When people began to realize they were unable to get ahead - let alone make ends meet, they started to revolt with guns as well as marches. It got so bad that a woman didn't dare turn on a light to see about her crying baby for fear of being shot!

As a student of history, I see a dangerous trend in our policymakers. They are repeating the idiocy that preluded WWI. Increasingly giving the rich what they want; creating laws to imprison those undesirable by the government (remember Dewey? He was imprisoned as an enemy of the state and his conviction was upheld by SCOTUS for speaking out against WWI.)

Now, we aren't as bad as we have been at some points. During John Adams reign we actually had Congress Critters arrested by the Executive branch and serving out their Congressional duties from jail. One such person even ran a successful campaign from jail. (I don't remember who this was, and laziness prevents me from looking it up.)

Personally, I worry about the fact that so few people seem to realize the dangers of repealing the very basic safety nets we have in place. Remember the original Revolution also believed in 'Virtue", not just "Independence" for Independence without virtue is licentiousness and that is just bad.

Division within USA
Ok, I see it. I live in Michigan and you can tell who supports who. The Bushies who see him as a 'darn nice guy' and the Bush-haters who see him as the son of satan or worse. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground. Personally, I think he is a tool of Karl Rove, but that is just me.

There is no middle ground with those in power on either side. Let me repeat that: There is no middle ground with those in power on either side.

These folks do not care about what is best for the country. They only care about staying in power - or getting back in power. And they will do anything to keep or get power.

My earliest memories include Nixon's resignation. Left a big imprint on me. Politician = thief, liar, criminal. If someone wants power, they probably shouldn't have it. This was the atmosphere I remember.

Then people got mad because Jimmy Carter told them the truth and wanted them to make some hard choices. They would rather have the propaganda of the Reaganites - and I include Clinton in this.

I have to wonder what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had had to be a war president after 9/11 and had said to people: "IF you want to hurt the terrorists we must, ABSOLUTELY MUST, decrease our reliance on oil." Instead we got "Go out and shop." from Bush.

People are, however, beginning to wake up.

Soldiers in a Civil War
Ok, the training of soldiers was perfected in WWII to dehumanize the enemy. Boot Camp is brainwashing. It is structured in such a way to condition a soldier to obey orders. And the self-selecting army is a bad thing. (Bring back universal service.) A Self-selected army sees itself as above everyone else. They aren't truly citizen soldiers. They are mercenaries. Granted, this is a broad generalization, but it is a natural tendency of self-selecting groups to become elitist in some way.

These are just my thoughts.

mlowsley

Originally posted by mlowsley
Violence?
What would it take for massive, large-scale violence to occur in the USA? A convergence of the same types of events that were happening during the Greate Depression. Violence, many historians agree, was only prevented by the intervention of FDR with the New Deal.

I'm sure you're right that their are historians who make such claims. It's pretty easy to claim that something is the cause of the prevention of something you claim would have happened. Using the same line of reasoning, we could claim that the Iraqi war has prevented violence in the US that would have happened otherwise. If you get a few historians to agree to that, then you have a nice sellable sound bite.

Other historians claim that the New Deal was actually the cause of the extended duration of the depression. Government is a consumer, not a producer of economic goods, so how can it solve systemic economic problems? It can't. All it can do is redistribute wealth and trick people into thinking things are better than they are.

In the case of the New Deal, the wealth was primarily taken from the middle class, and redistributed to primarily the middle class. Half a million black Americans lost their jobs due to wage laws. Did the New Deal make them better off?

The TVA flooded an estimated 730,000 acres of land. Thousands of citizens lost their property and homes to the flooding waters. Tenant farmers were not given compensation for their loss of land and property. We're those farmers better off? Worse yet, Tennesee farmers, who were the ones most impacted, did not even need electricity, and couldn't afford to purchase the expensive TVA electricity anyway.

Had the massive boondoggles of the New Deal not been draining the economy, it's likely the depression would have been over many years sooner. That would have prevented the hypothetical violence as well.

Originally posted by Serum39
Many posts mention a potential for a "civil war" in our future. My question is, if an uprising against our gov. was to occur would it be considered a civil war or a revolution? It was my understanding that a civil war is war amongst "civilians" and a revolution is an uprising against those in power.

1. Which is it? Civil war or revolution?

2. Of the two, which is more likely to occur in our near future? And why?

3. If a revolution were to happen, do you believe that our soldiers, our sons & daughters in the military, would turn and defend our gov. or would they turn and revolt against our military/gov.

4. What would our gov. do if the bulk of the military (soldiers) refused to fight on behalf of the gov and fought for the revolution? How would the gov. respond.

What do you think?

Peace

Wow, this post is just dripping with outrageous political conspiracies!!! I'm so glad it's here in this ATS forum.

Umm....

*shifty eyes*

...long live the South...anybody?...no..no takers? ok, I'll go back to my hole now...



-wD

Originally posted by Serum39
Many posts mention a potential for a "civil war" in our future. My question is, if an uprising against our gov. was to occur would it be considered a civil war or a revolution? It was my understanding that a civil war is war amongst "civilians" and a revolution is an uprising against those in power.

1. Which is it? Civil war or revolution?

The answer is obvious: Revolution

Originally posted by Serum39
2. Of the two, which is more likely to occur in our near future? And why?

A Revolution.
But it will never happen. I list my reasons in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by Serum39
3. If a revolution were to happen, do you believe that our soldiers, our sons & daughters in the military, would turn and defend our gov. or would they turn and revolt against our military/gov.

It doesn't matter. The citizens would have to plan and fight as if they had to battle the US military.
AND....
Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, and the upcoming Patriot Act III, all prepare in case American citizens to finally grow a spine and revolt - they all have clauses allowing the US goverment to call in military from other countries to defend the US goverment.

Originally posted by Serum39
4. What would our gov. do if the bulk of the military (soldiers) refused to fight on behalf of the gov and fought for the revolution? How would the gov. respond.

What do you think?

Peace

I answered this question just now by telling you one of the things in the Patriot Act laws.



[edit on 20-5-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

reply to post by smallpeeps


There is news of people killing family members in disputes over politics. Military killed their cousins and kin in the War Between the States. I think a new war some would some wouldn't.
I believe eventually we will see a new domestic revolution sooner than later, but we cannot continue down the path we are on and continue plugging along on autopilot while our "Elected Representatives" loot the treasury and fleece the flock all the while stirring up trouble (ie racial strife, class envy, conservative liberal, Republican Democrat, etc). Don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.It is true, divided we fall

A Civil War starts from the Rebellion (Revolution) of One against the Other (or Whole). TPTB want to start a Revolt that leads to Civil War as a CW would create division and it is simple strategy to "Divide And Conquer."
Resist being lead or manipulated into such a losing game...but let those in high places in what is left of our representative form of government know what is going on and encourage them to do the right thing before it is too late. Once martial law starts (ie, SHTF) then it will be too late I am afraid.
Obey authority or "take a train ride!"

Is Hollywood hinting...? First the 2012 Disaster movies and now we are seeing Valkyrie (the plot to assassinate Hitler) and Defiance (about the Jewish resistance in WWII)....is there a common thread emerging?