Civil war in the US

keu

Although more associated with science fiction novels and conspiracy theory flicks, the last few years make this something more of a possibilty in the US.
I just can't figure out who would be fighting who but in a nation where civilians are armed to the hilt, is it fantasical to imagine a coup take place at the whitehouse?

It's seems pretty definite that Bush will be re-elected, but I doubt that the other half of the country who didn't vote for him will keep schtum about it this time.

maybe I'm just wasting away the hours and indulging my imagination by seeing a revolution in the states. So..how real a possibility is it?

mike65

What in the name of all that is holy and boardsie are you on about?

Think about it for a moment...which part of the population is most likely to take up arms? Yep the folk who vote Bush! Those damned "pinko-liberals" would'nt know how to fire a gun never mind be inclined to do so!

Mike.

keu

lol...sorry mike, I was just curious, I mean half the population aren't happy with how the country is run and while that sounds like any democracy, things are really getting hot over there.

In some ways maybe would be nice to see a civil war. In any sense the country is in civil war mode at the minute, just a non voilent one.

aidan_walsh

Yes, because economically, socially and politically, a civil war in the States is just what the world needs... :rolleyes:

keu

Yes, because economically, socially and politically, a civil war in the States is just what the world needs

y'know..maybe it is.

aidan_walsh

Care to elaborate on that? I fail to see how...

keu

well I don't disagree that the rest of the world is in so many ways dependant on Americas stability, and for the record I'm not really pointing out that this is what the world "needs", but it is a corrupt monopoly, could do with a breath of freh air (a little upheaval and change)

I mean..politically, America gave saddam power in Iraq, and then equipped him to deal with the revolt of rebels. The happy days....America sealed a deal which secured the currency of oil ( in dollars) and then when Saddam was influenced by the new economic strength of Euro, the states did its best to remove him before the deal could go through.

But thats besdies the point.
Thing is a large majority of Americans are unhappy with how their country is governed and it seems that their votes don't really count.

GuanYin

Youre not John Titor by any chance are you?

keu

lol.

no..I have my own time travelling machine.

flogen

While I don't see Civil War happening, 4 more years like the 4 just gone and America will be speeding towards implosion more than ever before. I mean, the rich always get richer, but Bush has sped that system up much more than ever, the economy is in shíte, and if it gets much worse, who knows what will happen? The US are making more enemies than friends at the moment, and if Bush does what everyone thinks he's gonna do the army and its funding is going to be stretched out beyond recognition.

They're really just allowing China to become another true superpower a lot quicker than anyone imagined possible

flogen

mr_angry

The only chance of there being a second civil war in America is if some dramatic event occurs (similar to September 11th perhaps), but instead of uniting the nation, it polarises it completely. Seeing as most voters seem to be pretty polarised anyway, that would be the easy bit. However, the event would have to cause each side to blame each other, and I can't imagine what such an event would be. Bush trying to change the constitution to let him stay in power beyond 2008 is the only thing that springs to mind. Or a declaration of martial law perhaps?

I wouldn't be waving my arms and cheering over the rise of China as an international superpower either. While it may be nice to have a second political ideology with a successful economy, the Chinese have a bad reputation for opression and self-interest at the best of times, and they also seem to be building their economy on unsustainable levels of oil and steel. I'd rather live in America than China, and believe me, I'm not particularly keen to live in the US.

keu

funny you brought up John Titor syke, I remember reading about him a couple of years ago when he first popped onto the scene, so I just pulled up some of the old threads and its so very interesting (and probably more suited to the paranormal..but just thought I'd share though)

49. The reason the job of President was split into an office of 5 has 4 main reasons. With 5 (presidents), foreign policy is more consistent, power shifting between parties has less of an impact on the overall government, individual strengths between presidents add to the strength of the overall office, and one president is elected for each major area in the United States.

What is the extent of Presidential power in 2036?

50. The office of President is far more diluted and decentralized than it is here. The powers of the national government are more defined and reside more at the county and state level.

What is the new government like in 2036 compared to the current one?

51. I think the new government is good. However, since the concept of nationally subsidized welfare is gone, most people here may not appreciate it.

Where is the new US capitol?

52. The new US capitol is in Omaha Nebraska.

nebraska :eek:

Why are you so interested in the Constitution?

59. After the war, the United States had split into five separate regions based on the various factors and military objectives they each had.

29 January 2001 12:25

Are the Olympics still being played in the future?

60. As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004. However, it appears they may be revived in 2040.

01-31-2001 03:41 PM


64. The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over.


65. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.

GuanYin

There were claims by an extremist anti-Bush group that Bush would stay in power by whatever means he had to undertake.

I find the implications ridiculous but were Bush to win the election in a manner similar to the last one, I would imagine some unrest in the US.

GuanYin

keu wrote:

funny you brought up John Titor syke, I remember reading about him a couple of years ago when he first popped onto the scene, so I just pulled up some of the old threads and its so very interesting (and probably more suited to the paranormal..but just thought I'd share though)

nebraska :eek:

Why do you think I made the reference?

Jeebus but some of you guys are slow.

keu

I totally forgot about him.

wonder where he is ?

Hobbes

keu wrote:

I totally forgot about him.

wonder where he is ?

Probably on his book signing tour in the future.

I would tend to agree if he won the election the same way he did last time will cause problems. But I would say the invasion of Iran (if it happens) is more likely to lead to civil unrest.

DadaKopf

The seismic event that will plunge America into anarchy will be the collapse of its economy. While it's been predicted for decades, history shows it will happen, some time.

Despite the amount of privately owned firearms out there in the Good Ol' Country, American civil society is simply too fractious to mount any kind of organized assault on the state or each other. Not that any sizeable group really wants to, or could evem be bothered. If violence does occur, I think it'll be piecemeal until the economy collapses.

Then it'll become apparent that the state and its operators (big business , bureaucrats and the media) serve their own class because it'll use the state to clamp down its security apparatus in order to protect their interests at the expense of everyone else. The survival imperative will make people angry and prompt them to become organized because the liberty and opportunity lie pedalled by the dominant groups.

Look at what happened to mankind in between Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead!

There's already a gap between the rich and the poor (living and the undead) but factors inhibit people realizing that, or thinking they can do anything about it. When their civil war happened, it was over the unfair economic relationship between the North and the South that enabled the industrialized Northern Union to excel at Southern expense. It just so happened that the South needed slavery to survive.

Blah, blah, blah.

Problem is, if anything like this happens, the whole world is screwed, too.

Big Ears

America is a Republic(correct me if im wrong) and as a republic has the right to overthrow/sack/cause new elections if they(the government) is not doing its job .

Does anyone see some Americans trying to excercise this right in the future ?

DadaKopf

NRA nuts agree with you. And Tim McVeigh probably would, also. And the Black Panthers.

Whether a large scale revolt is likely is an entirely different thing.

LightofDarkness

I see two possibilites as to what could cause such disarray:

A nuclear strike, either by America or on America. Believe me, this isn't unfeasible. With all those nukes in circulation both on and off US soil, it could happen. And with many nukes in the hands of those who'd rather not see America be a superpower anymore, it could happen. And with Georgie's itchy trigger finger, I can see him finding a "good" reason to lay out some middle-eastern nation (or France :rolleyes: )

Bush declaring war on a western world country. I think that's another entertainable idea. Alot of UN countries don't like the US anymore. And because of this, redneck America doesn't like them either.

Captain Trips

keu wrote:

Although more associated with science fiction novels and conspiracy theory flicks, the last few years make this something more of a possibilty in the US.
I just can't figure out who would be fighting who but in a nation where civilians are armed to the hilt, is it fantasical to imagine a coup take place at the whitehouse?

The ironic side of me would suggest that a coordinated attack on the financial and military headquarters of a country in the space of 2 hours on a tuesday morning means that a coup did take place.

The republicans have an ongoing agenda, no matter how long it takes. Be it a democrat in power or not, the next round, a republican government and on goes the long term plan. With Kerry looking weak but even if he did get elected he's from the same school as Bush (literally and proverbially). I wouldn't expect him to start taxing his billionaire wife just yet.

So since the "coup", there has been mass detention of foreigners without trial, rapid expansion of police powers, escalation of involvement in military conflicts and a push for upsizing the army and filling the draft boards to the dismay of the population (or half of it anyway).

An error commonly made by us (those outside the US) is that we meet and interact primarlily with the city dwellers and urbanite Americans, those from NY, Boston, Chicago, Miami, LA and so on. However, the US is a rural population by majority with 200 million of the 270 million population living in towns of 50,000 or less (no bull****).

Hell, I was looking at populations recently and was shocked that the population of Manhattan is the same as Dublin; roughly 1.4-1.5 million. We see the cities and the relatively rich tourists but by and large the population is country bound and ?poor?.

LightofDarkness

Ahh, but those are only people actually taking residence in Manhattan. At any one point, there may be up to 11 million people on the island. Most commute from Suburban areas ie. Queens and the such. Strikes me as funny as how everyone is so quick to dismiss any notion of liberal or democratic agenda yet a conservative one is so much easier to believe. It's all politics people, and partisan at that. They're all as bad and as dirty handed as each other, left or right.

Big Ears

Captain Trips wrote:

country bound and ?poor?.

Speaking of country bound , I heard somewhere that only 2% of Americans hold a passport , does anyone else see this number as extremely low ?

That less than 5.5 million people .Surely my sources are incorrect .

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ah but Europe is a contintent the USA is merely a single state (albiet a bloody big one).

http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php

interesting snippet from US-O.C.S

The number of passport holders in The United States has increased since 1980. In New York City, 38 percent of citizens have passports, the highest rate of any U.S. city. Overall in The United States 18 percent hold passports says the U.S. Office of Central Statistics.

Mike.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because despite minor culture differences from state to state, you are still within your own culture. You cannot fully understand the world until you bother to explore it.

Tommy Vercetti

LightofDarkness wrote:

I
Bush declaring war on a western world country. I think that's another entertainable idea. Alot of UN countries don't like the US anymore. And because of this, redneck America doesn't like them either.

What about a full-scale invasion of an African country? 15,000 dead Iraqis may not make much of an impact to Americans but I'm sure thousands of dead African (i.e. black) people would stir up internal strife.

keu

What if Iran does attack Israel, (again) the US would feel obliged to respond. I'm sure that would pee off the UN no end, perhaps Russia might get involved...Korea is only looking for any excuse too. (might bring China online too)

I know they are "what if's" but it does look likely that the US wil invade Iran soon and such a scenario isn't too incomprehensible to visualise.

[just wanted to add, I doubt any of the above would launch an attack on the states, but with so many demands on the foreign front, home security becomes more and more strained. Fad a bhíos an cat amuigh bíonn na luchain ag rince..scenario)

Moriarty

I'll give you 20 to 1 odds that the US will not invade iran or north korea in the next 5 years.

I take paypal

flogen

keu wrote:

What if Iran does attack Israel, (again) the US would feel obliged to respond. I'm sure that would pee off the UN no end, perhaps Russia might get involved...Korea is only looking for any excuse too. (might bring China online too)

Sorry... when did Iran attack Israel, I know Israel attacked Iran.... but not vice versa.

N. Korea will not get attacked, I would bet large sums of money on that (just like Moriarty ). Iran is a possibility, but I think Bush will target somewhere else first if he gets in. I say Syria or Cuba (although Cuba would be a tough one to sell).
I have a feeling Iran will back down at some point... I don't know why, I just do.

flogen

pork99

LightofDarkness wrote:

I see two possibilites as to what could cause such disarray:

A nuclear strike, either by America or on America. Believe me, this isn't unfeasible. With all those nukes in circulation both on and off US soil, it could happen. And with many nukes in the hands of those who'd rather not see America be a superpower anymore, it could happen.

Like most people you are getting a bit confused between nuclear weapons and delivery systems. During the cold war the USA and the USSR could threaten global destruction because they both had thousands of nuclear warheads and also the means to deliver them via long range bombers (eg B52s) and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missliles (ICBMs). For example even if a country like Iran got a nuclear bomb or two it lacks the means to drop it on the US, lacking both a strategic bomber fleet and ICBMs.

The only countries which could pose this threat in the short to medium term is the People's Republic of China, to a lesser extent North Korea, and maybe though unlikely, Russia.