Impending US Civil War?

[dragoncat]

Hello all, a friend forwarded me some links to articles claiming that the government in the USA is building up and training its troops to quell domestic dissent that is expected in the next few months.

this is one of them

this is the other one

I tend not to believe this kind of thing (read: conspiracy theory), but wondered if anyone had heard anything about this from a trusted source.

[chacoguy]

I imagine if a white supremacist actually managed to kill President Obama the aftermath would look somewhat civil warish.

[hansel]

It occurs to me that one way for the Obama administration to stimulate consumer spending is to let leak a few choice details like "U.S. gov't order 50 million body bags, civilian sized" and "Chinese military observers invited to Fort Dix". Overnight, sales of ammunition, camping gear, and canned goods skyrocket, stabilizing the economy.

[Koxinga]

I'm interested in what might happen if a movement starts for an Article 5 constitutional amendment, and Congress looks like it would refuse to initiate the required constitutional convention. That might turn out to be a sticky situation.

[Wendell Wagner]

The European Union Times and Chuck Baldwin Live are racist publications.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by chacoguy

I imagine if a white supremacist actually managed to kill President Obama the aftermath would look somewhat civil warish.

Nah . . . There would be rioting, that's all. In the 1960s America never came close to civil war (though it seemed to many at the time they were already in one).

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

The European Union Times and Chuck Baldwin Live are racist publications.

Looking at its welcome page, yes, the European Union Times does appear to be a racist publication.

As for Chuck Baldwin, there seems no room for doubt.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by dragoncat

I tend not to believe this kind of thing (read: conspiracy theory), but wondered if anyone had heard anything about this from a trusted source.

I got an email about this the other day. That's a trusted source, right?

It said, "Pass this along to everyone you know!!!!!!" so it must be true. Funny how the usual news services seem to ignore it. They must be in on the conspiracy.

[E-Sabbath]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
Well, as everyone knows, it has been predicted by a famed Russian academic that the US will break up into six countries in 2010 or thereabouts.

He's clearly right. Gonna happen any minute now.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Nah . . . There would be rioting, that's all. In the 1960s America never came close to civil war (though it seemed to many at the time they were already in one).

I'm not so sure: such an event (god forbid) in and of itself might inspire riots, but also might set off a radical reaction at the federal level (Homeland Security: The Sequel) that some states couldn't accept. Anything that looks like a "civil war" wouldn't be a matter of individuals taking up guns, Ruby Ridge style, but more like entire states banding together to declare their opposition to federal policies.

[kunilou]

The nice thing about nutjobbery is that it's non-partisan.

Here's a 2004 thread about George W. Bush suspending the general election.

Here's a 2003 thread about Bush's plans for a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iraq.

Unfortunately, the search function isn't showing anything earlier than 2003 right now, or I'd link you to some threads about Bill Clinton declaring martial law. Instead I'll have to give you this 1993 article that says Clinton would practice on Puerto Rico before doing it in the U.S.

[Spoke]

From the second article:

It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet.

Write your own punch line.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
Well, as everyone knows, it has been predicted by a famed Russian academic that the US will break up into six countries in 2010 or thereabouts.

He's clearly right. Gonna happen any minute now.

Russia will break up before the US does.

Originally Posted by Koxinga

I'm not so sure: such an event (god forbid) in and of itself might inspire riots, but also might set off a radical reaction at the federal level (Homeland Security: The Sequel) that some states couldn't accept. Anything that looks like a "civil war" wouldn't be a matter of individuals taking up guns, Ruby Ridge style, but more like entire states banding together to declare their opposition to federal policies.

Not really. The Obama adminstration will be too timid to too anything radically authoritarian security-wise.

We didn't have a civil war during the Great Depression and we won't have one this time around either.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Not really. The Obama adminstration will be too timid to too anything radically authoritarian security-wise.

Well, that's the point of this particular sub-plot: it wouldn't be the Obama administration, it'd be a (presumably shell-shocked) incoming Biden administration, with little enough gumption to face down a Congress that's baying for blood.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Well, that's the point of this particular sub-plot: it wouldn't be the Obama administration, it'd be a (presumably shell-shocked) incoming Biden administration, facing a Congress that's baying for blood.

The US has suspended much civil rights before during the Civil War, and the World Wars yet that didn't provoke mass riots.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

The US has suspended much civil rights before during the Civil War, and the World Wars yet that didn't provoke mass riots.

Neither did any asteroids plummet into the Great Lakes at that time. A point, do you have one?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Neither did any asteroids plummet into the Great Lakes at that time. A point, do you have one?

The last four presidential assassinations which happened in times far more primitive and prone to violence than our own. If authoritarian measures than and during the wars were not that drastic why would this situation if (God forbid) happens be any different?

[Frostillicus]

Uh, your friend is an idiot.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

The last four presidential assassinations which happened in times far more primitive and prone to violence than our own. If authoritarian measures than and during the wars were not that drastic why would this situation if (God forbid) happens be any different?

Well, the concept of "domestic terrorism" wasn't nearly as big a deal back then: the time we're living in now has the "benefit" of both 60s civil unrest and 9/11 within living memory, as well as a much-weakened respect for the Constitution and a politically poisonous atmosphere in general. I'm not saying it's Obama/Biden and the Democrats who are uniquely prone to authoritarian overreaction: if it were Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in power, were such a Bad Thing to happen, I'd probably be equally worried in this kind of environment.

And again, it's not the (perceived) authoritarian measures in and of themselves, but the reaction of the states against those measures, that I think could set off a constitutional crisis at least.

I don't think any of this is likely, but if the OP is asking how a civil war could happen, I think this might be one of the more likely routes.

[wierdaaron]

I could imagine there being a war against the people who think "educated" is an insult and those who don't. There'd have to be a pretty big spark to light that fire, though, I don't think an assassinated Obama would do it. That would just send us into despair, not righteous anger.

Since there's only been one US civil war, it's hard to extract much data (so far, 100% of civil wars have been about slavery), but I don't know if one would even be possible now. The country was smaller and didn't have the complex and domineering military system we have now. Then it was just farmers with guns vs farmers with guns. A civil war now would be farmers with guns vs the National Guard, Army, Marines, and Air Force (the Navy could sit this one out).

This is why you don't see many civil wars in military-industrialized countries. If anything, you see military coups. How would you get the entire military to turn against the rest of the government in the US?

I suppose if you had one president that was a real gung-ho military man and everybody with a uniform loved him, and then after him was a hippy-dippy liberal president who wanted to dismantle our entire military or something, with a decent helping of Limbaugh-fueled anti-government sentiments and that ex-president getting vocal in public opposition of the current president, he could possibly get some of the top US commanders to break from the pentagon and go (ahem) rogue.

Basically, rebels vs the empire.

Edit: To reiterate my last point, consider simply the use of the phrase, "I want my country back" and the type of people prone to saying it.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I suppose if you had one president that was a real gung-ho military man and everybody with a uniform loved him, and then after him was a hippy-dippy liberal president who wanted to dismantle our entire military or something, with a decent helping of Limbaugh-fueled anti-government sentiments and that ex-president getting vocal in public opposition of the current president, he could possibly get some of the top US commanders to break from the pentagon and go (ahem) rogue.

Don't forget that every state has its own army, and the majority Federal domestic military assets are based within the states' territories . . .

[AdmiralCrunch]

I dunno, when I was young it seemed like the country was just as divided and passionate as now, if not more. Then Gillette puts a damn battery into a safety razor and makes all the blood spilled over the razor wars seem silly.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Musicat

I got an email about this the other day. That's a trusted source, right?

Former Kansas State Trooper Greg Everson isn't a trusted source? It even says he "cited verifiable information confirmed by an active duty US Air Force Colonel, three chiefs of Police, a local Sheriff, State Troopers in 3 neighboring Midwest states and a Federal agent he has known for twenty years." Hell, if that isn't proof of the gov'ment is planning to kill 50 milliion gun owners using data collected by Census workers to program military targeting computers to coincide with an invasion by the Chinese from the west and Mexico from the south, I don't know what is!

If that isn't enough to trust, I checked the EU Times about page, it looks like they've been providing such reliable information since ummm.... October. This year.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I could imagine there being a war against the people who think "educated" is an insult and those who don't. .

I can imagine a war between bears and ninjas, but that don't make it likely.

[El_Kabong]

From the first of the linked articles:

Originally Posted by wack job No. 1

“The American people have reached the point of total saturation due to the failure of Government to protect its borders, corruption and theft.” Everson expects that such a response has been projected by US Government computer models and believes NORTHCOM, DHS and state and local authorities will begin implementation of Operation Garden Plot and Martial Law within 45-60 days. “Civil war is precisely what this administration wants to happen,” said Everson. “And before Americans can organize themselves they will be destroyed by their own military.”

Well. that's pretty specific, at least as far as timing goes. The article is datelined 11 December; 45-60 days puts launch of this notional civil war around the end of January 2010. What precipitating factor is there that would result in 'computer models' predicting a general insurrection in the dead of winter? Aside from some hopelessly vague comment about 'theft' by the federal reserve, not a thng, near as I can see. So, if we get to Easter and the revolution has not yet been televised, can we agree the articles are pretty much bullshit from beginning to end?

Now, as long as we're on the subject, I know it's kind of a quaint notion, but both the linked articles seem to come pretty close to sedition. Am I in error on this?

[Little Nemo]

Yes but this article was posted by Europe. And Europe's always been straight with me.

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Yes but this article was posted by Europe. And Europe's always been straight with me.

Yes, well, I guess the title "EU Times" should give me a clue as to where it's located, eh?

In my defence, I'm a bit tired.

[Little Nemo]

I'd have no problem with an article being posted by Pierre Dubois or Gunther Schmidt or Salvatore Rossi. But "Posted by Europe"? Are we supposed to feel that an entire continent collaborated on writing this article?

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

Yes, well, I guess the title "EU Times" should give me a clue as to where it's located, eh?

Yep.... Florida.
A whois domain lookup for eutimes.net:

Registrant:
 Jessica Nachtman
 16435 E. Stallion Dr.
 Loxahatchee, FL 33470
 US

 Domain name: EUTIMES.NET

 Administrative Contact:
    Nachtman, Jessica  
    16435 E. Stallion Dr.
    Loxahatchee, FL 33470
    US
    +1.5617182424
 Technical Contact:
    Nachtman, Jessica  
    16435 E. Stallion Dr.
    Loxahatchee, FL 33470
    US
    +1.5617182424

So... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest this particular bit of crazy doesn't reflect the overall opinion of Europe, but rather one Jessica Nachtman of Loxahatchee, FL... who can apparently be found on Twitter under the name "AlabasterGirl", with a bio that reads: "White Nationalist with Libratarian views. Proud Mother & wife. 4th Generation Floridian. Aspiring Priestess of Freyja."

[Apollyon]

And what is a "Libratarian"? A liberal librarian?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

And what is a "Libratarian"? A liberal librarian?

A librarian who thinks that books should shelve themselves and not insist that valuable taxpayer dollars go to paying librarians to shelve them.

[Marienee]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

And what is a "Libratarian"? A liberal librarian?

A person who organizes women's undergarments according to the Dewey Decimal system of course. Sheesh, kids these days.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

And what is a "Libratarian"? A liberal librarian?

A person who believes rights and freedoms should be tied to one's Zodiac sign.
I, for one, believe Aquarians should have unlimited freedom of speech, but Cancers should get the right to drive over the speed limit. Leos, those only get the right to remain silent. Serves those assholes right.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I could imagine there being a war against the people who think "educated" is an insult and those who don't. There'd have to be a pretty big spark to light that fire, though, I don't think an assassinated Obama would do it. That would just send us into despair, not righteous anger.

Since there's only been one US civil war, it's hard to extract much data (so far, 100% of civil wars have been about slavery), but I don't know if one would even be possible now. The country was smaller and didn't have the complex and domineering military system we have now. Then it was just farmers with guns vs farmers with guns. A civil war now would be farmers with guns vs the National Guard, Army, Marines, and Air Force (the Navy could sit this one out).

This is why you don't see many civil wars in military-industrialized countries. If anything, you see military coups. How would you get the entire military to turn against the rest of the government in the US?

I suppose if you had one president that was a real gung-ho military man and everybody with a uniform loved him, and then after him was a hippy-dippy liberal president who wanted to dismantle our entire military or something, with a decent helping of Limbaugh-fueled anti-government sentiments and that ex-president getting vocal in public opposition of the current president, he could possibly get some of the top US commanders to break from the pentagon and go (ahem) rogue.

Basically, rebels vs the empire.

Edit: To reiterate my last point, consider simply the use of the phrase, "I want my country back" and the type of people prone to saying it.

What part of that sentiment can't you comprehend?

I take it you are among the "educated" and those people aren't?

Weird indeed.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
Well, as everyone knows, it has been predicted by a famed Russian academic that the US will break up into six countries in 2010 or thereabouts.

In fact, I think there has already been a GD thread about that prediction.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What part of that sentiment can't you comprehend?

The "back" makes no sense at all.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

So... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest this particular bit of crazy doesn't reflect the overall opinion of Europe, but rather one Jessica Nachtman of Loxahatchee, FL... who can apparently be found on Twitter under the name "AlabasterGirl", with a bio that reads: "White Nationalist with Libratarian views. Proud Mother & wife. 4th Generation Floridian. Aspiring Priestess of Freyja."

For some reason, a lot of White Nationalists these days are into Norse neopaganism. Probably because you can't get much whiter than that . . . maybe also because Norse mythology is so violent and grim.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The "back" makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. You could argue that the "my" doesn't make any sense though.

The point is it's simply a phrase every bit as meaningful as "Change we can believe in".

[R. P. McMurphy]

Americans are too fat, lazy and intellectually dumbed-down to conduct a revolution. Revolutions take work.

Any country that can become obsessed for weeks over Tiger Woods' sex life and people like Lindsey Lohan could never muster the energy for a revolution.

Besides, if a revolution did start, it would peter out as soon as the Dancing With The Stars broadcast aired.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Yes but this article was posted by Europe. And Europe's always been straight with me.

However, I shall never forgive them for The Final Countdown.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What part of that sentiment can't you comprehend?

I take it you are among the "educated" and those people aren't?

Weird indeed.

It still is "their" country. The only difference is now "their" country has a Democratic president and healthcare reform in the works, and also a lot less likely to commit crimes against humanity. Unlike what they considered "their country" under Bush.

If I were to take a guess at the group he meant I'd say it includes the fools jabbering about government death panels, while insurance companies try to weasel out of paying for their signed on clients through Rescission. The same pieces of shit who supported a president that lied, and committed war crimes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands so he he could make blackwater (now Xe) richer.

Apparently killing somebody is okay, if it's for profit.

[Little Nemo]

However, I shall never forgive them for The Final Countdown.

Personally I thought Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen were good.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

It still is "their" country. The only difference is now "their" country has a Democratic president and healthcare reform in the works, and also a lot less likely to commit crimes against humanity. Unlike what they considered "their country" under Bush.

If I were to take a guess at the group he meant I'd say it includes the fools jabbering about government death panels, while insurance companies try to weasel out of paying for their signed on clients through Rescission. The same pieces of shit who supported a president that lied, and committed war crimes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands so he he could make blackwater (now Xe) richer.

Apparently killing somebody is okay, if it's for profit.

Nailed it! Whenever I see the whiny righties go on about "taking their country back" I want to slap them silly. Sometimes you lose elections. Grow up.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Did you mean "grow up" or "give up". I think the latter is what you'd really like.

Me thinks you're going to need to remember your own advice over the next few years.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Sure it does. You could argue that the "my" doesn't make any sense though.

No, the "back" makes no sense. Take it back from what?

That's the problem with teabaggers. They equate losing fair and square in the democratic process to "having their country taken away from them. They're morons.

The point is it's simply a phrase every bit as meaningful as "Change we can believe in".

Hardly. The latter is just a harmless campaign platitude. It might not have much substance, but it doesn't contain any flatly false, paranoid factual assumptions or the anti-democratic sentiment that "take my country back" does.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Did you mean "grow up" or "give up". I think the latter is what you'd really like.

No, really, it's the former. Believe us. It's you guys that can't tolerate dissention or disagreement, not us.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by kunilou

The nice thing about nutjobbery is that it's non-partisan.

<snip>

Here's a 2003 thread about Bush's plans for a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iraq.

Erm... that's not a very good example.

Three months after that OP about a possible pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iraq, we got... a pre-emptive conventional-arms invasion of Iraq. It's been in the news, apparently.

[spifflog]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Erm... that's not a very good example.

Three months after that OP about a possible pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iraq, we got... a pre-emptive conventional-arms invasion of Iraq. It's been in the news, apparently.

And yet, that conventional-arms invasion not really on the same plane at all as a nuclear strike.

The posters point is well taken. Nut jobs on both sides of the aisle.

[mswas]

Of course the US Government has contingency plans for a civil war. They make plans for all kinds of eventualities that are highly unlikely.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The thing really stopping any potential for civil war is that the ideological divisons lack and distinct geographical ones. It's not the North vs. the South any more, it's just morons vs. normal people. Everyone's all mixed together.

The morons, who don't understand the democratic system and think they should have big, public baby tantrums and threaten armed violence because they lost an election might think that there is some kind of real potential for a revolution against US democracy, and against the US military, but they think that because they are morons. Normal people don't take them seriously, and the morons don't have any particular geographical territory or base they can retraet to or defend. All they can really do is whine.

Even if they did have a geographical base to fight from, they would still be easy to defeat because they're morons.

I still think it would be fun to watch these idots who talk about needing guns to defend themselves from the government actually try to fight the US military, though. That would be fun. Brief, but fun. They'd be like bugs attacking a windshield.