Threats Of Civil War

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Watchman220, May 7, 2010.


  1. Watchman220

    Watchman220 Watchman

    There are lessons to be learned from what we see in Greece now. Is the USA on the same path? You decide. Certainly looks like it to me.

    Threats Of CIVIL War.
     
  2. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I love Karl.. he has been hitting those nails on the head time and time again.
     
  3. fmhuff

    fmhuff Monkey+++

    In our last civil war one in ten men lost their lives. In the south fully 25% either died or was severely wounded, loss of arm or leg, etc. It will be very ugly if it happens again. Pray it does not.
     
  4. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Nobody wants it, but woe betide those that aren't prepared.
     
  5. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    Eh,
    It takes unity and organization to start a civil war.
    I see more along the lines of mayhem and chaos.

    So the question is how to bail out Greece, and that will continue to be the question here. In answer, the fed will continue to print money and the govt. to borrow and back the debt with more printing.
    The thing is, that money is not a real tangible object. It doesn't represent a certain amount of gold, silver, labor or anything else. So all this made up money is just watery soup.
    Think of the soap dispenser when it runs empty. What do you do? Add a bit of water, and use watery soap. Do that a few times and you're using nothing but water.
    That's the real concern. When people start to realize that these green little notes are worth less than dirt - what happens? The whole facade disappears and so does our way of life. This is all imaginary folks. Our entire standard of living is a hologram. For most of recorded history, life was struggle, disease, pain, tyranny and scratching at dirt. Now we have the tools to make it better, but unfortunately years of shortchanging and grifting have eroded the superstructure and left behind a bunch of hollow beams.

    Alrighty - I'm rambling - time for bed.
     
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Phui. To my mind, it's none of our business, and we should keep our beaks out of the soup. Now, before someone gets all tuned up, I am not necessarily an isolationist, I simply think there comes a time to cut the losses. If IPG want to take down the rest of the EU, then let them do so. Or, if we are going to extend a loan, hard collateral (not MFN status or consumables) becomes a requirement. "Full faith" does not a repayment make.
     
  7. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!


    I meant continue to be the question in the US. I think the bailouts will go on maybe in actual payouts to companies and states or in a general sense as in useless spending programs.

    Nah. Hell no to sending more money overseas.
     
  8. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    OK, now we are on the same page, I think. Whatever else, the bailouts must stop whether in or out of the country.

    I'm unsure that the Greeks are really in civil war mode, with leaders other than pot stirrers. Rioting is mob psychology, doesn't necessarily need strategic or tactical leadership. And such activity isn't currently possible in the US, I don't think. I believe a leaderless "revolution" is more likely here, since the PTB have ears to the ground that would detect such a threat, or even an imagined one sim to Waco or Ruby Ridge. (The Hutaree remain an open question.)

    Back to civil war in the US, and a nod to history: Lets say that the late war between the states was ideology based along with the state's rights issues (can be argued several ways.) I don't see that as any sort of trigger for battle lines between states, townships or whatever. We are looking at restraint of individual rights, freedoms, and privacy (not to mention Constitutional issues) not class or political problems as was the case in the late 1800s.

    For the sake of argument, we'll call the protagonists "pros" and "cons." I just cannot see them deliberately and physically moving, the pros on one side of the river and cons on the other. What I can see is individuals taking covert action against the perceived "enemy" without any kind of collaboration among like minded folks. Individual or very small group OPSEC will rule until one side or the other has an overwhelming advantage and can reveal themselves politically. Leaders will not appear until then, and may not even exist before that time.

    Anyway, individual activities will be considered terrorist activity until there is enough of it to brand the individuals as insurgents or revolutionaries depending on which side of the fence you are on.
     
  9. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I would tend to say" its easy to say jump around yelling "civil war is coming to the u.s."but if you really look hard at it there are way too many possible factions.pro/con. I mean who's p.o'.d at the "TPTB"??

    the illegal community ,la raza, ms13

    The beleaguered and maligned (patriot/militia/ vet community)

    the outof work robbed and raped joesixpack (bubba community)...

    the citizen islamist,

    thebanks and big money guys are at war with each other daily( daddy warbux community)
    So what are the objectives?

    What would you consider a "win"?
    Would it be more about beating the "oppressor class"( Ivan still around?) or just beating them off us.?
    Without a cohesive agenda its just a mat of firecrackers thrown into a garbage can.

    What I'm getting at is:
    Say ms13 "infiltrates" the inside the beltway;one day they drop their leaf blowers and waiters uniforms gather up our current crop of leaders into a semi with a coffee can to pee in and ship em to Tijuana to star in stage acts involving tequila and farm animals...
    who's the"enemy" then? of course anybody who doesn't adhere to our constitutional republic form of govt.
     
  10. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Call me "crazy" but I'd settle for an electoral clean sweep in congress and getting Ron Paul elected to the W.H. Maybe they can arrange to take A "CLASS FIELDTRIP" TO GO SEE THE actual CONSTITUTION. tha'd make me sleep better. That and moving the u.n to brussels.
     
  11. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    The only way I can see a civil war coming about is if states made a real effort to secede. Not just this lip service to the 10th amendment.
    States would have to really throw off the feds. That includes cutting out welfare programs, highway subsidies etc.
    Then, if a state or two actually attempted to secede - and this is a long process - AND banded together to form a new union with other states (sound familiar?).
    Then I can see the feds standing in the way and after years of harassment, a stalemate becomes a standoff, a standoff becomes a skirmish - push comes to shove and we have a real situation on our hands.

    But on that note - which states really have the impetus to do this? Which senators are not sold out to the NWO? Which states do not have strong party ties to the Democrats OR Republicans?

    You would basically need a TEOTWAWKI environment before it got to the level of secession.
     
  12. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Any state the feels it can support and defend itself as an independent nation could to that route. Any state that thinks it isn't getting its share of re-distributed Federal (income tax) money or attention might have a whack at it.

    Any given state's citizens that think their elected representatives are serving a master other than them, might have a try, too.

    None of the states are sufficiently free of the major party's influence, so I think that won't be a factor.

    As of now, the only states I can see that would benefit from secession are the southern border states, and I'm not too sure they could support themselves without an alliance with the remainder of the Union. Others that support the concept might well join in. I can see that a couple states would suffer greatly by being excluded, at least one on each coast, and would resist mightily. How they might do that, I've no idea since they seem to think the rest of the Union owes them, they will think they are too important to be allowed to become failed states like Somalia.
     
  13. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    you also have to replace them with a system that stops another ruling class from forming to count it as a win. otherwise its just a party.(and yeah, im here)


    as to breaking the hold the big two have, a proportional representation system in the house of rep would totally fix that.

    ETA: also, Greece's situation isn't all *that* similar to ours. Firstly, their budget actually would be balanced if it weren't for the massive systematic tax fraud going on at every level of society. Secondly, the gap between rich and poor is far wider in Greece. these are both strong motivators to get people out in the streets. people who actually did pay their taxes(or only cheated a little) feel robbed when services get cut, and the wide gap stimulates both revolutionary class consciousness and simpler jealousy.
     
  14. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Yeah, the people are divided and their modern lifestyles hinge on the use of electricity and water -take them away and all hell will break loose. Couple that with rampant murder, rape, and race war, and we have a massive powder keg just waiting to explode.

    The people who support the constitution and liberty are the enemy. Of course the gov't defends the Mexican radicals. They will be used to keep the law abiding WHITE people from attacking the Gov't.
     
  15. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Without organization already in place (and its not) I can mostly envision local reprisals against gangs, thugs and criminals or say against a local security commander and units whose troops are particularly brutal. where personal acts of revenge are taken.These actions are not taken by people who want to disrupt established goobermint. Just get some personal payback for injustices.
     
  16. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

     
  17. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++


    What's
    a proportional representation system ? Go on I'm listening ( see avatar


    what we have now is First Past the Post system. the country is divided up into districts and if you win a district you get the seat. this favors broad tent parties built out of compromise with as many people as possible who agree with you at all. because you have to the most votes to have any chance of representation.
    lets say a district has 100 people, divided equally betwee 5 political parties. lets call them A B C D and F. B and C are kinda similar. they brush over the things they disagree on and merge leaving A, BC, D and F as the four parties. BC now has the district locked down as a win even though they only make up 40% of its population. the other parties have to merge to keep up. this whole process of merge and counter merge happens until you get two vast parties that dont *really* represent anyone.


    what we have now is First Past the Post system. the country is divided up into districts and if you win a district you get the seat. this favors broad tent parties built out of compromise with as many people as possible who agree with you at all. because you have to the most votes to have any chance of representation.
    lets say a district has 100 people, divided equally betwee 5 political parties. lets call them A B C D and F. B and C are kinda similar. they brush over the things they disagree on and merge leaving A, BC, D and F as the four parties. BC now has the district locked down as a win even though they only make up 40% of its population. the other parties have to merge to keep up. this whole process of merge and counter merge happens until you get two vast parties that dont *really* represent anyone.

    what we have now is First Past the Post system. the country is divided up into districts and if you win a district you get the seat. this favors broad tent parties built out of compromise with as many people as possible who agree with you at all. because you have to the most votes to have any chance of representation.
    lets say a district has 100 people, divided equally between 5 political parties. lets call them A B C D and F. B and C are kinda similar. they brush over the things they disagree on and merge leaving A, BC, D and F as the four parties. BC now has the district locked down as a win even though they only make up 40% of its population. the other parties have to merge to keep up. this whole process of merge and counter-merge happens until you get two vast parties that dont *really* represent anyone.



    a proportional representation system means allocating seats to a party based on what portion of the vote they get. there are many different ways two do this, so ill just share with you what my ideal would be.

    Id bump the House up to 500 seats. the total number of seats each party gets is based on the percentage of national votes the party gets. for example, a party that gets 15% of the national vote would get 75 seats.

    250 of the seats would be filled the same way they are now, with voting districts where you vote for an individual person. this to ensure that you have someone directly accountable to your local area you can contact about local issues. the remaining seats will be distributed to bring parties up to their percentage via party lists that all registered parties running candidates anywhere submit ahead of time.

    so a party that won 50 districts and who got 15% of the vote nationally would get their 50 district seats plus 25 seats filled by the first 25 eligible people on their party list.(candidates who where also running for a district seat and won it are ineligible).


    the list seats existing mean that small parties can get a few seats without having to be concentrated in a single area. once it isn't "throwing away your vote" anymore people will coalesce into smaller parties that more accurately represent them and are more responsive. it wouldnt happen overnight, but itd happen.
     
  18. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    hmmmm.Thanks but that's way too much math at 1am. sounds like big ass govt to me.
    I do like the idea of smaller parties getting a chance.
     
  19. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    well we could just get rid of the senate at the same time. :D
     
  20. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    That's actually pretty smart, Ivan.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7