A coming civil war in the US?

[KennyB]

i'd be interested in hearing where KennyB stands on each of the issues he has raised - if he doesn't mind telling .

I'm just stating the situation as I see it. Unless I post them, my personal opinions are none of your **EDIT** business. KennyB

**The language filters are there for a reason.**

Edited December 18, 2009 by aquatus1

[FurthurBB]

Just so I don't jump to any "crazy" conclusions, are you saying you supported the mass murder of over two hundred thousand innocent Japanese, the continental genocide of the natives, and the blood shed fought over the "right" to enslave our fellow human beings? Thank god patriotism is dead, because if it breeds a thought process like that, then it's long over due to be skewered through its heart.

You know what is ironic, most people assume that the US's two greatest allies in the UN are Israel and Britain, but, they are really Japan and Germany. No one should use nuclear weapons, but, at the time it was the best possible strategic move for the US to make. Japan was a very powerful military power and after the war on the European front, we did not have enough men or resources to continue on for much longer and it would have taken a lot longer. Now, the genocide of natives because we thought god wanted us to have this land can never be justified.

[aquatus1]

Just so I don't jump to any "crazy" conclusions...

Sound like you did regardless.

All members are reminded to discuss matters in a civil and adult manner. Baiting others into responses is not only bad form, it is glaringly obvious.

[Guest]

You know what is ironic, most people assume that the US's two greatest allies in the UN are Israel and Britain, but, they are really Japan and Germany. No one should use nuclear weapons, but, at the time it was the best possible strategic move for the US to make. Japan was a very powerful military power and after the war on the European front, we did not have enough men or resources to continue on for much longer and it would have taken a lot longer. Now, the genocide of natives because we thought god wanted us to have this land can never be justified.

This position is very disputable. The Japanese were on their knees and barely able to supply their war effort. It could easily have been resolved without Nuclear weapons, the simple threat and a demonstration of capability would have done it.

The main reason that the Nuclear option was chosen was to see what those new weapons were capable of and to allow scientific data gathering about the long term effects on human populations. This is the one and only opportunity that scientists and governments have had.

It was very much a practical decision, but not for the reasons you state.

Br Cornelius

[Cadetak]

There's very little patriotism any more, like it was back when.

Your talking about Nationalism and not Patriotism, there is a difference.

The media, and now Obama, keeps telling everybody how sorry we are. We shouldn't have A-bombed the Japanese, we shouldn't have killed off the Indians, The South shouldn't have fought against the North.

Those are all very horrible things that shouldn't have happened, to say that they are good is to support mass murder. They are all very bad things however necessary or justifiable they may or may not be.

Every time you turn on the news you hear about another scam the politicians have been involved in.

Nothing new. Deception is apart of the human character, obviously in politics and business but even down to the individual person.

Crime everywhere, drug wars, the cops can't even walk the streets at night.It's hate, hate, hate. The whites hate the blacks, the blacks hate the whites, they both hate the Hispanics. Everybody hates the politicians. We've been on the verge of a civil war for awhile and it gets worse every day. It's like a powderkeg, all it needs is the slightest bit of a light. KennyB

Crime and Racism? Yeah those two have existed since the dawn of man as well.

There will be no civil war.

1.) People are inherently selfish and fearful. Are you suggesting that an average citizen will start killing his own people because the economy is in a slump? Because they don't like the man in office and isn't patient enough to wait 4 years for another election? In truth nobody is willing to kill or be killed for anything that is happening in American politics right now, because it is all relatively trivial.

2.) Risk v.s. reward. So we have our civil war...death, destruction, political social collapse...for what? We don't have a better for of government to replace our capitalist democratic republic so what do we do replace the current government with the same exact form of government making the whole deal eventually pointless?

3.) The United States Military. Unless you can splinter our armed forces to fight eachother or have another nations militray back you up(won't happen) the whole deal is crushed in a week...a bunch of untrained and unorganized hillbillies with shotguns, gang bangers with uzi's, and suburban yuppies with 9mm bullets aren't going to be able to do much of anything. Martial Law is in-nacted and the rebels.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist remember.

[SRCivic98]

Your talking about Nationalism and not Patriotism, there is a difference.

Those are all very horrible things that shouldn't have happened, to say that they are good is to support mass murder. They are all very bad things however necessary or justifiable they may or may not be.

Nothing new. Deception is apart of the human character, obviously in politics and business but even down to the individual person.

Crime and Racism? Yeah those two have existed since the dawn of man as well.

There will be no civil war.

1.) People are inherently selfish and fearful. Are you suggesting that an average citizen will start killing his own people because the economy is in a slump? Because they don't like the man in office and isn't patient enough to wait 4 years for another election? In truth nobody is willing to kill or be killed for anything that is happening in American politics right now, because it is all relatively trivial.

2.) Risk v.s. reward. So we have our civil war...death, destruction, political social collapse...for what? We don't have a better for of government to replace our capitalist democratic republic so what do we do replace the current government with the same exact form of government making the whole deal eventually pointless?

3.) The United States Military. Unless you can splinter our armed forces to fight eachother or have another nations militray back you up(won't happen) the whole deal is crushed in a week...a bunch of untrained and unorganized hillbillies with shotguns, gang bangers with uzi's, and suburban yuppies with 9mm bullets aren't going to be able to do much of anything. Martial Law is in-nacted and the rebels.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist remember.

you under estimate your opponents too. Which is the same strategy they done in Vietnam as well. They thought since we had superior weaponary and better technology and more troops that we could defeat them as well. France thought the same as we did before when they tried to fight in Vietnam with their French Legion. The Russians thought that about the Afghans when they invaded, etc etc etc. Custard when he went to Little Bighorn. There is a number of battles and events that have occured throughout time that has proven that theory wrong. To fight someone on their home turf is to ask for a death sentence with assistance.

As for your theory on Risk versus Reward...there is no rewards in war, if you think about it logically neither side wins and neither side loses because the more things change the more they stay the same. You can keep the same government but you show it that their powers are limited and that they can only push but so much before they are overthrown. It's one of the reasons that the second amendment was made. As well as the right for the people to overthrown a government if the powers that be become too controlling or do things that are looked upon badly by the whole country.

True people shall always be selfish or fearful but also, to call one man a coward that's holding the pink slip is like teasing a wild dog with a raw steak and asking him not to bite you. To kill because the economy is in a slump...wrong...to kill ebcause you don't like who's in office (rather they be republican or democrat or independent )...maybe...to wait four years until the next election.....what if this administration changes how long the president and other political leaders can stay in office because they want more power of the government and then people start threating your lives like they did during the last election if you don't vote for the under dog or who is currently in office? Don't say it couldn't happen because it has and it will continue more. Don't be blind to just one side of the blade because you might be looking at the dull side and ignoring the sharpened tip with the razored edge on the reverse side. That's just what I would suggestion as a friendly opinion. Not that you have to agree or disagree. Just one man's opinion. I'm sure you have your own. As for anyone else, I don't know if you agree or disagree with me, but I would say that a civil war such as the Government versus the people will occur and then the enemies of this nation can and will take advantage of our disagreements and then it will all wiped away as if it never existed...and by it, I mean the United States.

Edited December 18, 2009 by SRCivic98

[KennyB]

You know what is ironic, most people assume that the US's two greatest allies in the UN are Israel and Britain, but, they are really Japan and Germany. No one should use nuclear weapons, but, at the time it was the best possible strategic move for the US to make. Japan was a very powerful military power and after the war on the European front, we did not have enough men or resources to continue on for much longer and it would have taken a lot longer. Now, the genocide of natives because we thought god wanted us to have this land can never be justified.

BB, Japan wasn't as bad off as you seem to think. They still had many soldiers in Japan, a lot in the Philippenes and a whole lot more still in China. The military didn't consider the A-bomb as such a big thing. The cities were already being destroyed by fire bombs, what was the difference. The main thing was, they did not want to give up their conquered territory in China and Korea. The surrender was all the Emperor's

idea, not the military. In fact, they staged a coup attempt to try to stop the Emperor's radio broadcast being made to the people. The military would never have surrendered at this time, if ever. Don't bet too heavy on Germany and Japan being such good friends of the U.S. There's still a lot of resentment in both populations. In fact, I doubt if we've got a real friend anywhere in the world. If we go under, nobody will mourn us. Everybody hates a bully. KennyB

[KennyB]

you under estimate your opponents too. Which is the same strategy they done in Vietnam as well. They thought since we had superior weaponary and better technology and more troops that we could defeat them as well. France thought the same as we did before when they tried to fight in Vietnam with their French Legion. The Russians thought that about the Afghans when they invaded, etc etc etc. Custard when he went to Little Bighorn. There is a number of battles and events that have occured throughout time that has proven that theory wrong. To fight someone on their home turf is to ask for a death sentence with assistance.

As for your theory on Risk versus Reward...there is no rewards in war, if you think about it logically neither side wins and neither side loses because the more things change the more they stay the same. You can keep the same government but you show it that their powers are limited and that they can only push but so much before they are overthrown. It's one of the reasons that the second amendment was made. As well as the right for the people to overthrown a government if the powers that be become too controlling or do things that are looked upon badly by the whole country.

True people shall always be selfish or fearful but also, to call one man a coward that's holding the pink slip is like teasing a wild dog with a raw steak and asking him not to bite you. To kill because the economy is in a slump...wrong...to kill ebcause you don't like who's in office (rather they be republican or democrat or independent )...maybe...to wait four years until the next election.....what if this administration changes how long the president and other political leaders can stay in office because they want more power of the government and then people start threating your lives like they did during the last election if you don't vote for the under dog or who is currently in office? Don't say it couldn't happen because it has and it will continue more. Don't be blind to just one side of the blade because you might be looking at the dull side and ignoring the sharpened tip with the razored edge on the reverse side. That's just what I would suggestion as a friendly opinion. Not that you have to agree or disagree. Just one man's opinion. I'm sure you have your own. As for anyone else, I don't know if you agree or disagree with me, but I would say that a civil war such as the Government versus the people will occur and then the enemies of this nation can and will take advantage of our disagreements and then it will all wiped away as if it never existed...and by it, I mean the United States.

The U.S. military is not the supreme fighting force you think it is. It is designed to fight a pitched battle against another well armed nation, WW2 style. There have been no such wars since WW2 and they have lost every one they've been in. If it really came down to a real civil war, the military would lose. A hillbilly behind every tree with a hunting rifle would run them crazy just like the Vietnamese did, only worse. The first time they turned machine guns against rioting American civilians, that would be the end for them. KennyB

[FurthurBB]

This position is very disputable. The Japanese were on their knees and barely able to supply their war effort. It could easily have been resolved without Nuclear weapons, the simple threat and a demonstration of capability would have done it.

The main reason that the Nuclear option was chosen was to see what those new weapons were capable of and to allow scientific data gathering about the long term effects on human populations. This is the one and only opportunity that scientists and governments have had.

It was very much a practical decision, but not for the reasons you state.

Br Cornelius

You could look at it that way too, I am sure we wanted to see what it could do, but, it does not change the fact that it was a good strategic move. The Japanese were not prepared to surrender unconditionally and were no where near on their knees. They would have lost, but, not before we lost a lot more money, support from the public, and lives. Not to mention, just like in Europe, we had to keep Russia under control.

[FurthurBB]

BB, Japan wasn't as bad off as you seem to think. They still had many soldiers in Japan, a lot in the Philippenes and a whole lot more still in China. The military didn't consider the A-bomb as such a big thing. The cities were already being destroyed by fire bombs, what was the difference. The main thing was, they did not want to give up their conquered territory in China and Korea. The surrender was all the Emperor's

idea, not the military. In fact, they staged a coup attempt to try to stop the Emperor's radio broadcast being made to the people. The military would never have surrendered at this time, if ever. Don't bet too heavy on Germany and Japan being such good friends of the U.S. There's still a lot of resentment in both populations. In fact, I doubt if we've got a real friend anywhere in the world. If we go under, nobody will mourn us. Everybody hates a bully. KennyB

When did I say they were bad off?

[BlindMessiah]

Sound like you did regardless.

All members are reminded to discuss matters in a civil and adult manner. Baiting others into responses is not only bad form, it is glaringly obvious.

How did I jump to a conclusion?

Just so I don't jump to any "crazy" conclusions, are you saying you supported the mass murder of over two hundred thousand innocent Japanese, the continental genocide of the natives, and the blood shed fought over the "right" to enslave our fellow human beings? Thank god patriotism is dead, because if it breeds a thought process like that, then it's long over due to be skewered through its heart.

His post seemed to indicate that he supported those three things, so I quite plainly asked him if he did. Then I stated that if that's the case, that he does support those things, and considers himself patriotic, then I'm glad patriotism is dead. There were no conclusions about him made in my post.

What part about asking for clarification on a post is uncivil? In addition, I clearly didn't bait him, despite what you consider glaringly obvious, as he didn't even respond to me.

[KennyB]

How did I jump to a conclusion?

His post seemed to indicate that he supported those three things, so I quite plainly asked him if he did. Then I stated that if that's the case, that he does support those things, and considers himself patriotic, then I'm glad patriotism is dead. There were no conclusions about him made in my post.

What part about asking for clarification on a post is uncivil? In addition, I clearly didn't bait him, despite what you consider glaringly obvious, as he didn't even respond to me.

Just to make you happy, my responce to you is the same as it was to OM. It's none of your business what I support or don't. Is that clear enough? KennyB

[BlindMessiah]

Just to make you happy, my responce to you is the same as it was to OM. It's none of your business what I support or don't. Is that clear enough? KennyB

Seems odd that you participate in an opinion based discussion forum where you make implications but are unwillingly to share your opinions, but that's you're right I guess. I only asked once, you didn't need to respond twice and in such a hostile manner. The post you responded to wasn't even directed at you. But yes, you've made your position plenty clear. I apologize if I've offended you. BlindyM

[SoCrazes]

Yeah I do feel sorry for anyone who tries an uprising like that, they'll just get squashed like bugs.

I agree; but, many are tired of the elite sucking the working class dry (Do not the Chinese, Thai, Burmese, etc. worker not see his/her fate in the American worker?). Paradigms are everything, and there isn't no changing this. There will be ill wills struck and many will suffer. The truth always prevails. I predict there will be many waves of such and, as usual, the elite will lose...they are outnumbered and thier "paradigm" will not prevail for it is not truth based...after all, humans know intrinsically what is right and wrong. Don't get me wrong, I've been a capitalist (and still am to a certain degree), however, capitalists have gone too far (have confused greed with capitalism) and the loss will be greater than they anticipated. We capitalist are the prey of our own; after becoming too exteme we devise our own predators who consume us. When the U.S. permitted MNC's to operate freely, we developed an organism that cannot be contained. Hence, the worldwide middle and lower classes will step up to defeat it; unless of course the capitalists ascertain the error of their way. Order out of chaos only exists in the minds of the capitalists and it is by this phrase that they defeat themselves. "Ordus defeatus via greedus." Essentially, capitalism is good - greed is bad...the common man must pervail or all else fails.

Edited December 19, 2009 by SoCrazes

[KennyB]

If something real bad happens, like the electrical power grid going out or the banks closing, the people are going to be upset. Everybody knows who caused this catastrophe, they tell it to you every day. The politicians are delibertly destroying the country. People are going to hit the streets, some may fight among themselves, but they are all going to be looking for politicians. If the govt uses the Natl Guard or the army to try to stop them and somebody gets shot, there'll be hell to pay. Remember what happened at Kent State? That little shooting caused such a stink it helped end the Viet Nam war. The people will only take so much and then they'll blow. In the 1700s, the British kept pushing us until we blew. We killed Redcoats until we got tired of it and sent the rest back to England with their tails between their legs. The French did even better. They took their crooked leaders and chopped their heads off. A lot of guys will refuse to shoot Americans. They'll desert and join them. They've been screwing us around for a good while. They get bolder and bolder. Every time you turn around, they've got another scam going. People are losing their homes. They're turning the US into a third world country. They don't even bother to hide it. Mark what I say, all it takes is something big and the whole thing blows. KennyB

[Stellar]

And you, KennyB, will be the first to take up arms, right?

[brlesq1]

Don't think so. Sounds like a hoax to me.

[Cadetak]

you under estimate your opponents too. Which is the same strategy they done in Vietnam as well. They thought since we had superior weaponary and better technology and more troops that we could defeat them as well. France thought the same as we did before when they tried to fight in Vietnam with their French Legion. The Russians thought that about the Afghans when they invaded, etc etc etc. Custard when he went to Little Bighorn. There is a number of battles and events that have occured throughout time that has proven that theory wrong. To fight someone on their home turf is to ask for a death sentence with assistance.

Both sides will have a home field advantage in Civil War/Revolution. Unlike your examples we will not be fighting a foreign invader but ourselves on the streets and suburbs of American soil and not in the mountain wastelands of Afghanistan or the mess of a jungle that was Vietnam.

As for your theory on Risk versus Reward...there is no rewards in war, if you think about it logically neither side wins and neither side loses because the more things change the more they stay the same. You can keep the same government but you show it that their powers are limited and that they can only push but so much before they are overthrown. It's one of the reasons that the second amendment was made. As well as the right for the people to overthrown a government if the powers that be become too controlling or do things that are looked upon badly by the whole country.

Exactly! Your revolution will prove fruitless, you swap out current politicians for new ones that will be prone to the same exact problems you have now.

Also if you bring about war you may not be able to reinstall a stable government...because when chaos insues and the cops, feds, and army are exhausted you leave a very large window of opportunity for gangs and other organizations to take direct control.

You clearly do not understand the risks and aftermath of what you are proposing.

True people shall always be selfish or fearful but also, to call one man a coward that's holding the pink slip is like teasing a wild dog with a raw steak and asking him not to bite you. To kill because the economy is in a slump...wrong...to kill ebcause you don't like who's in office (rather they be republican or democrat or independent )...maybe...to wait four years until the next election.....what if this administration changes how long the president and other political leaders can stay in office because they want more power of the government and then people start threating your lives like they did during the last election if you don't vote for the under dog or who is currently in office? Don't say it couldn't happen because it has and it will continue more. Don't be blind to just one side of the blade because you might be looking at the dull side and ignoring the sharpened tip with the razored edge on the reverse side. That's just what I would suggestion as a friendly opinion. Not that you have to agree or disagree. Just one man's opinion. I'm sure you have your own. As for anyone else, I don't know if you agree or disagree with me, but I would say that a civil war such as the Government versus the people will occur and then the enemies of this nation can and will take advantage of our disagreements and then it will all wiped away as if it never existed...and by it, I mean the United States.

It will not happen or at least not any time in the foreseeable future. There is no reason for revolution, not nearly enough motivation for anybody to start one or join one.

Did the hippies ever have their revolution? Speaking of corruption did we go to war after Watergate? Speaking of presidents we don't like did we revolt on Bush? Of economic turmoil, did we start a civil war during the Depression? Did Women or African Americans kill everybody for their freedoms?

Right now if I called on you would you pick up your gun and kill a government official? Would you kill anybody who stood to stop you? Would you risk the safety of your friends and family for your mission? Would you be willing to die for any of this? To toss away your job, money, belongings, your future and your life? Because that is exactly what your talking about.

Also, again one mans freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Your method would be undemocratic, an act of war on the United States, would put her citizens in harms way, and would put the security and stability of the nation in turmoil.

Oh and the majority of Americans fear a fist fight let alone a whole bloody war.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Cadetak

[WoIverine]

the amero will be in full swing before a civil war would ever begin. That would more than likely buy a few years time until the EU and AU finishes signing up countries. War won't come from within, the next war will be fought against future globalists and their conglomeration of power over all nations. Militia vs. NWO most likely. Better brush up on those ninja skills eh?

Edited December 19, 2009 by SpiderCyde

[WoIverine]

Oh and the majority of Americans fear a fist fight let alone a whole bloody war.

Sorry man, but I kind of doubt that. Everyone I know and work with gets off on a good brawl.

[Stellar]

Sorry man, but I kind of doubt that. Everyone I know and work with gets off on a good brawl

Ones they watch?

[WoIverine]

Sure, that too, several of us have been in multiple altercations though.

Edited December 19, 2009 by SpiderCyde

[Cadetak]

Sorry man, but I kind of doubt that. Everyone I know and work with gets off on a good brawl.

Do you mean watching Boxing or UFC? Or do you mean they actually fight, and when you say 'brawl' do you mean a real fight or a slight altercation when a couple yell a lot trade a few punches waiting for somebody to break them up or for the cops to come?

Even in the city, people like to talk but rarely do anything unless their absolutely gauranteed to win and not get hurt(say 3 on 1 or bye caring a weapon) and even then only towards people who look like or seem like they don't anybody who they can go get to retaliate.

[Guest]

Chaos will come, will for or not, when the fuel of our current dream of modernity becomes to expensive to allow things to continue as before. It is cheap energy which keeps the wolf of chaoes from the door and when it stops been cheap many systems which we relie on fall apart and the effects cascade into greater and greater chaos. we live in a self organising system with energy as the organising principle.

When people start to hurt real bad (when they can't afford to drive to work, and can't find basic supplies in the shops) they will riot, and at that point it won't make a scrap of difference, becuase the cheap energy will not be coming back.

When the economy starts to pick up again, the first commodity that will sky rocket will be energy, and it will plunge us straight back into the mire, only a little worse this time, with a little bit more chaos.

These things are inevitable unless we face the real issues of purpose and organisation. Since our current politicans have absolutely no ansewrs to these questions they will be swept away when the issues can no longer be ignored.

Br Cornelius

[Cadetak]

Chaos will come, will for or not, when the fuel of our current dream of modernity becomes to expensive to allow things to continue as before. It is cheap energy which keeps the wolf of chaoes from the door and when it stops been cheap many systems which we relie on fall apart and the effects cascade into greater and greater chaos. we live in a self organising system with energy as the organising principle.

When people start to hurt real bad (when they can't afford to drive to work, and can't find basic supplies in the shops) they will riot, and at that point it won't make a scrap of difference, becuase the cheap energy will not be coming back.

When the economy starts to pick up again, the first commodity that will sky rocket will be energy, and it will plunge us straight back into the mire, only a little worse this time, with a little bit more chaos.

These things are inevitable unless we face the real issues of purpose and organisation. Since our current politicans have absolutely no ansewrs to these questions they will be swept away when the issues can no longer be ignored.

Br Cornelius

Rioting is always a possibility but even in your example I don't believe a civil or revolutionary war would ensue.

I believe that in the event of such chaos as you describe it would not signal our civilization's end but only force us into adaptation.