Ok, this lag is honestly pissing me off now. Takes me 5 minutes just to refresh...
Be back later.
Be back later.
it really all depends on the military. i'd say its safe to assume that the higher up generals are going to be eating out of the president's pocket, seeing as bush forced the retirement of most of the good ones.
from here what matters is essentially what the grunts and NCOs do. if they're loyal to their nation more than anything else they'd fight with the people. if their training and whatnot is first and foremost, then they might listen to the orders of those eating out of bush's hands.
because of military advances the people will not be able to fight back without the help of another nation's military if ours stays loyal to the chief.
from here what matters is essentially what the grunts and NCOs do. if they're loyal to their nation more than anything else they'd fight with the people. if their training and whatnot is first and foremost, then they might listen to the orders of those eating out of bush's hands.
because of military advances the people will not be able to fight back without the help of another nation's military if ours stays loyal to the chief.
QFTATG wrote:
first, what do you think the governments response would be?
They would try to cut off services and food supplies
what do you think the military response would be?
I'd like to believe the citizen soldiers would turn their guns on the politicians before they would use them on a large group of civilians; That's they key, if five million citizens marched/swarmed on Washington and somewhat peaceably shut the place down I don't think there is much they could do. But if small groups of people went around blowing stuff up and assasinating politicians and police officers thinking they were going to change the government they would be put down as terrorists.
at what point do you think the military would start killing their own countrymen?
I'd like to believe that they would only do it if the cause of the militias was immoral; like if it was trying to take freedoms away from the people, instead of restoring them.
and how effective would the citizens be against an actual army?
If enough people in America really wanted to go there I believe we would be quite effective. Guns are abundant. Raw materials for making explosives are readily available and millions of tons of commercial explosives are just lying around. Computer nerds could disrupt internets.
The real question for me is, what would it take to rile the people so much that they would unite to fight?
I cannot imagine anything. Too bad really. The U.S.S.R. is gone. The United States spent trillions and fifty years defeating the Soviet Union so that our sovereignty could be surrendered as elitists try to attempt a North American Union. They are making our situation so bad the AU we seem like a good alternative. Politicians are wholly corrupt and corporations control U.S. policy. It is time to reset the clock in this country.
Politicians should remember that people who feel like they have nothing left to lose are very dangerous.
nah, the whole system is replete with laws that guarantee overwhelmingly large and tyrannical corporations. banking legislation in particular. our elected officials cant do a thing to change it in their 4 years of power, and for the most part they only achieve positions of power with the consent of the banks and media. so they are useless in protecting the rights of individuals.B.Schuss wrote:
as I said before, I really can't imagine a scenario under which a full-flegded armed rebellion against the US government would seem the only possible alternative. I mean, someone has to run the country, and what guarantee would you have that those you put into power will do better than those you just removed ? Power corrupts.
This is not about the political system, it's about the people running it. And people are generally assholes. Some more, some less.
gotta go, I'll continue this later....
the largest source of power in the world is the workforce, the struggling masses. its up to us whether we stand up and make fair demands or continue to be lead like sheep into a permanently stratified world. social mobility is low and its diminishing with the dollar. if we chose to no longer tolerate freeloading administrative suits and wigs, almost everybody could live a bit better.
corporations should be legally obligated to stake all their employees to a comparable extent as the original owners. so buying stock and taking salary go hand in hand. as it stands, the variation in salary can be several orders of magnitude. if we simply made a law that said no individual can take more than 100 times the salary of the lowest paid employee, then most social problems would begin to disappear and it would negatively impact almost no one besides the top socio-economic 1%.
If you are going to let some people live like lords, then you are bound to find their serfs. the USA stands for freedom and independence. we shouldnt tolerate a political system that permits the building of empires, but thats what weve done. put simply, we failed to escape the tyranny of the european empires and their monetary system such that the avg americans today have "woken up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -T. Jefferson
im not recommending the destruction of our government completely, just the restoration of our rights as individuals and transparent banking reform so that a privileged few are not able to profit unduly from the whole of human commerce. if i cant steal bread from a store, then there is no reason that the fed stockholders should be able collect interest on money that they penned from thin air and no reason for the IRS to demand unconstitutional income tax at gun point to pay that interest.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-19 16:22:26)
If there's ever an uprising... society would collapse.
Being a "government" of the people and all. The military would probably disband, and those with money would probably be running everything, until they're killed off.
The USA would cease to be a country if there was a revolution.. imo.
Being a "government" of the people and all. The military would probably disband, and those with money would probably be running everything, until they're killed off.
The USA would cease to be a country if there was a revolution.. imo.
Guns aren't the kind of thing that would allow us to truly overthrow the government, but we could certainly maintain one hell of an insurgency.
Its possible with foreign countries coming to the aid of cilvilians arming them with military grade weaponry and training. If civilians were to revolt, there be a lot of nations that are willing to supply the equipment needed. Unfortunately these nations would be the same nations we are fighting currently fight against. Imaging getting military aid from Bin Laden....mmmm...no thanks.
The government is nothing without money. Why not just boycott taxes.
(I'm definitely NOT advocating the violent overthrow of the government!)
I think it would depend on how resistance was split. If you have a regional split, like the American Civil War, the government would probably win. If you get an ideological split, where the rebels are dispersed among loyalists, it would depend on the numbers and strength of will. If you had a (large majority of the) people vs. the government, the people would be able to win, unless the gov. started using WMDs.
There are enough weapons and items capable of being used as weapons to wage a fierce insurgency. The military split would depend on the circumstance. If it was clear that the government was grossly abusing the Constitution, the military would likely be in favor of the people. If there was no clear abuse, many troops would invoke the "against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" bit.
...in my world of hypothetical speculation.
I think it would depend on how resistance was split. If you have a regional split, like the American Civil War, the government would probably win. If you get an ideological split, where the rebels are dispersed among loyalists, it would depend on the numbers and strength of will. If you had a (large majority of the) people vs. the government, the people would be able to win, unless the gov. started using WMDs.
There are enough weapons and items capable of being used as weapons to wage a fierce insurgency. The military split would depend on the circumstance. If it was clear that the government was grossly abusing the Constitution, the military would likely be in favor of the people. If there was no clear abuse, many troops would invoke the "against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" bit.
...in my world of hypothetical speculation.
Would US citizens be able to defeat the government?
Yes, every four years.
Yes, every four years.
Please.Pug wrote:
Would US citizens be able to defeat the government?
Yes, every four years.
Jesus.
We get to "choose" between two "chosen" candidates from two "different" parties.
lolCommieChipmunk wrote:
Please.Pug wrote:
Would US citizens be able to defeat the government?
Yes, every four years.
Jesus.
We get to "choose" between two "chosen" candidates from two "different" parties.
very good points. the government would control water, food, and electricity supplies. Also, fuel supplies would become an issue sooner or later.Superior Mind wrote:
I think that a major problem would be like ATG mentioned: utilities. If the government shut down water and electricity supplies most people would really struggle. Another problem would be getting around this massive nation. Traveling by car would be tough unless you knew the back roads of the land (military checkpoints). Also, it may be easy for you folk who live in places like Missouri to attain fire arms, for people who live in big cities like me, it would be nearly impossible.
At some point, it would become very difficult for civilian militias to move around the country and supply themselves. With the kind of heavy machinery that is used in modern conflicts, it's very hard to live off the land...
I guess the outcome would depend on the "legality" of the rebellion. If the majority of americans ( including the armed forces ) considered it to be justified, there is little the government could do. The keyword in that case would be peaceful rebellion. Peaceful protests in the capital, millions of people standing in front of the white house, etc.. That would work, like it has at least partly during the vietnam war, and the civil rights issues in the 60's.
But if a couple of insurgent militias started to blow up stuff, or killed government employees randomly, they'd probably lose all support among the population, and be chased down like dogs.
But again, what scenario are we talking about here ? I really cannot imagine a situation where an armed rebellion would be the only possible alternative. As I said, someone has to actually run the country. And what sytem of government other than a democratic republic would you chose anyway ? You already have the best system.
In the end, this is about trust. You have to trust those that you elect into office that they adhere to democratic principles. Checks and balances can only do so much. It's the people that run your country that make the difference. And those are your fellow americans. As long as there is no divide between those who run the country, and those who live in it, you should be fine.
honestly, I have long believed that a little more diversity with regard to the political parties in the US would work miracles to re-vitalize the political life in the US. Because essentially, you only have one more party than the dreaded communists...Pug wrote:
lolCommieChipmunk wrote:
Please.Pug wrote:
Would US citizens be able to defeat the government?
Yes, every four years.
Jesus.
We get to "choose" between two "chosen" candidates from two "different" parties.
Well, Parker. Good luck with that. Id say... no. However I suppose there could be a peaceful overturn of the government if the entire country hates the president so much... its just the guns that would lead to the wrong outcome.
noice 
well, first off, this isnt something im going to do.KuSTaV wrote:
Well, Parker. Good luck with that. Id say... no. However I suppose there could be a peaceful overturn of the government if the entire country hates the president so much... its just the guns that would lead to the wrong outcome.
the reason i made this thread is, this has derailed a few different threads, so i thought i would just make this one.
and your right, guns would lead to the wrong outcome.....i mean, its not like we have ever used them to help us before
Let's say its a close race between four parties. One barely beats the others. Now 3/4's of the nation hates the president instead of the usual half.B.Schuss wrote:
honestly, I have long believed that a little more diversity with regard to the political parties in the US would work miracles to re-vitalize the political life in the US. Because essentially, you only have one more party than the dreaded communists...
Touche.
(Ps. good idea. I now cite Simpson's Halloween Special where the Aliens take over the Earth because they replace the presidential candidates. Something like: "Hooohahahaha. Yes, I'm not George Bush, I'm an alien. And my Democratic opponent is also an alien. You can vote for whomever you wish. Hooohahaha. Voting for Nader is like throwing your vote away!")
Also, as far as revitalization goes - have you been watching the election this year?
Once you get to the national level, politicians no longer represent anywhere near an accurate sample of the population.Steel wrote:
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.Parker wrote:
no, the government is NOT the people.Magpie wrote:
the gov is the ppl soooo civil war ftw??
what government are you from?
In a civil war here, it would not be civilians vs. military. It would be civilians and military vs. civilians and military.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-20 08:43:16)
And by that theory, you should really remove one party. Then everyone votes for who wins and then everyone will love the president.Pug wrote:
Let's say its a close race between four parties. One barely beats the others. Now 3/4's of the nation hates the president instead of the usual half.
/logic.
You have to have the military on your side, if not it´s going to be a civilian slaughter. Sure you might be able to take out some tanks, maybe some soldiers (though keep in mind these are alot more trained to the situation and the fight would be in the military's advantage) but there's no way in hell civilians can quickly take down aircraft.
I wouldn't like to be the target of an AC-130 gunship.
Eventually though the military will succumb if it's civillians vs military. Military can't do much without any civilian support (Keep in mind that this is an unlikely scenario, things like this will only happen when it's two sides battling eachother with one supporting the gov. ) I would only revolt if I was sure of military support.
I wouldn't like to be the target of an AC-130 gunship.
Eventually though the military will succumb if it's civillians vs military. Military can't do much without any civilian support (Keep in mind that this is an unlikely scenario, things like this will only happen when it's two sides battling eachother with one supporting the gov. ) I would only revolt if I was sure of military support.
inane little opines
Don't blame me...I voted for Kodos!Pug wrote:
(Ps. good idea. I now cite Simpson's Halloween Special where the Aliens take over the Earth because they replace the presidential candidates. Something like: "Hooohahahaha. Yes, I'm not George Bush, I'm an alien. And my Democratic opponent is also an alien. You can vote for whomever you wish. Hooohahaha. Voting for Nader is like throwing your vote away!")
no. Iraqi civilians are better armed and look how far theyre getting.
If you read between the lines (I did cite Kodos for President) that no one is ever happy.DrunkFace wrote:
And by that theory, you should really remove one party. Then everyone votes for who wins and then everyone will love the president.Pug wrote:
Let's say its a close race between four parties. One barely beats the others. Now 3/4's of the nation hates the president instead of the usual half.
/logic.
Mmmm, no. You couldn't defeat the most powerful Army in the World, unless they stop responding to the president.
I change my answer. Yes. Yes they can.