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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the current climate of anger against bank bail outs, little to no lending, high unemployment etc. I would think it’s prudent for any western power to make sure they are covered for large scale civil unrest. The possibility of anger hitting the streets is greater now than it was a few years ago.
Here in Ireland there’s a lot of trouble at the moment as the government is trying to control spending and is pissing most of the country off in the process e.g. the Police are talking about going on strike (which is illegal).
Even without going into the bullshit that some of the right are throwing around in the US I can totally see why the government would be prepping for trouble.
Civil War is WAY too strong though. It would have to ramp up a huge amount for that to happen but large scale civil unrest is very possible. In fact all it takes is someone in power to make a silly mistake at a small protest march and it could snowball up like LA after the Rodney King thing.
Diogenes of course is just being the corrollary to his own argument. Any resistance would be 4G War style, and if it were hot enough people would defect with military hardware.
So he’s right, the up in your face civil war that he’s imagining would go down like he says, but of course no one would fight it that way.
Once again, I hold that anything resembling a civil war would be an issue contended at the level of states, not individuals, vs. the federal government. And once again, states have armies of their own, and would (hypothetically) have the ability to seize federal military assets within their borders.
Just so I’m clear, you’d like me to expain to you why I don’t think that nuclear war and conventional war are on the same plane? Is that really what you are asking?
. . . because the U. S. didn’t use nukes. Never considered using nukes that I’m aware of. Hasn’t used nukes in almost 65 years. Every President in the nuclear era has considered nukes to be on, well, a different plane, if you will, and hasn’t seriously contemplated their use.
Now, the U.S. doesn’t take pre-emptive military action against sovereign nations. Never considered doing so prior to 2003 that I’m aware of. Every President since 1776 has considered pre-emptive military action to be on a different plane, if you will, and hasn’t seriously contemplated it.
Missed this before.
There are, in total, about half a million National Guardsmen. Barely enough to fight off the Coast Guard.
I don’t think the nuclear war thread belongs in the category of left-wing nuttery since it was started based on a news story covered by CNN, not some lefty poster’s fantasy.