I'm wondering..if the US had a civil war today...

[MichiganVote]

Would the North win? Would it even be a North / South conflict?

[donco6]

1. Not that neat and tidy.

It would be more like the Balkans - neighbor against neighbor.

[MichiganVote]

4. I think this is also true

[RC]

5. I am wondering how I can get enough boiler plate in here to

line the outside walls, ceiling and floors of my apartment.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. That was the civil war in Missouri

Unlike the main theaters of war, in Missouri it was up close and personal. The most notorious of the Missouri guerrilla leaders was William Quantrill, a southern sympathizer.

The climax of Quantrill's guerilla career came on August 21, 1863, when he led a force of 450 raiders into Lawrence, Kansas, a stronghold of pro-Union support and the home of Senator James H. Lane, whose leading role in the struggle for free-soil in Kansas had made him a public enemy to pro-slavery forces in Missouri. Lane managed to escape, racing through a cornfield in his nightshirt, but Quantrill and his men killed 183 men and boys, dragging some from their homes to murder them in front of their families, and set the torch to much of the city.

Years before the civil war actually broke out, Kansas also struggled with the issue of slavery in a conflict that featured what we would nowadays call terrorist attacks. People would be murdered in their homes for being on the wrong side of the conflict. One side was no less guilty than the other. In 1856, three years before he took a stand at Harper's Ferry, John Brown led a raid on a proslavery town that resulted in the murders of five settlers. This was in retribution for a proslavery raid on Lawrence the previous year.

It's a very ugly page in American history that we would hope is not repeated.

[Protagoras]

15. yep, and they'll use Bumperstickers

as identification.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Given that most of the military infrastructure is located south of the...

...Mason-Dixon line, I fear the outcome would be different than the last conflict.:scared:

[MichiganVote]

3. That is my thought too

Bodes ill doesn't it.

[lonestarnot]

Would be a real ass buster for sure.

[Shoeempress]

6. Funny you should bring this up. The other night, my incredibly calm

rational non-violent Husband looked at me while were listening Randi and said "I think we should get some guns". Right now we have no guns. Now we aren't anti-gun, have target shot (Nothing living), never for personal security, and Hubby was raised with LOTS of guns. But to have him say this as a result of the current political climate was shocking because he is always talking me down about the encroachment of our rights, and lets move to Canada, yada yada yada. Man it is getting bad.

[Clark2008]

8. I've thought about that, too, but with little disposible income

for such an item and even less to safeguard that item from my 6-year-old son, I probably will have to resort to finding a liberal-friendly but armed neighbor (which will be easy to do in my neighborhood) to protect me when the battle commences.

[solinvictus]

72. You can arm yourselves with a rifle for about $100

This is a Mosin Nagant rifle, which fires a powerful cartridge. You can get a rifle and about 440 rounds of ammo for less than $200.

[tnlefty]

14. I'm with your husband!! I've been talking about purchasing a few

firearms and taking my kids along with me to safety classes and to learn to become fairly accurate at firing the things.

[Shoeempress]

34. What a sad state our country has sunk to, that one would feel the need

to be armed.

[K8-EEE]

36. EVEN I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT GUNS!

I fucking HATE guns. Have no interest in them whatsoever, I always considered that the Nat'l Guard was the "well regulated militia" or whatever but Shrub has effectively sent half of them abroad and there are not a lot of recruits.

But the thing is, if the govm't really turns against us totally -- what good are the guns? GWB has NUKES AND ARMIES at his disposal and he is fucking insane. They could call any one of of us terrorists just for speaking our opinion and don't some of them (Coulter etc) already SAY that?

I'm So California born and bred and I never in a million years thought I would consider leaving my home but am sort of feeling out options (Spain, Canada.) I REALLY THINK IF THINGS DON'T TURN AROUND FAST....we will regret being here. They want a RW dictatorship with no minority voice AND THEY ARE GETTING IT. By hook or by crook.

[Shoeempress]

37. I think this has more to do with Freeper neighbors. Chimpy can't send the

troops to our houses, THEY ARE ALL IN IRAQ. Besides, I think this is more about the breakdown of society he is bringing about.

[VTMechEngr]

50. The Jews held off for a month in Warsaw with mere Pistols

Don't underestimate weapons in determined hands.

[DoNotRefill]

63. the thing is...

"But the thing is, if the govm't really turns against us totally -- what good are the guns?"

That when they come to round us up, we have a choice. We can passively resist, or we can actively resist. If we passively resist, we will be carried to whatever fate they have in store for us, and we will have no ability to try and stop them. If we actively resist when they illegally come to violate our basic human rights, some of us will still die, but at least we will not die alone.

You mention that they have nukes and armies at their disposal. Well, if they are willing to nuke our nation's cities to kill us, you're right, they can. But they will not...because they want to RULE, not ensure that everybody dies. Corpses, after all, are not much fun to boss around. Then there's armies. Let's say that the Right Wing declares war on, say, everybody who voted for Kerry. That's what, 60 million people? Let's say that, oh, one in twenty of those people decides to fight back while being murdered (that's three million people), and manages to kill just one of their murderers in self-defense. How big is the army that they'd be sending against us, again? The Nazis killed 6 million Jews during the Second World War. If one out of every six Jews had managed to kill a single Nazi, that would have been a million dead Nazis. Pick the biggest, most important battle in WWII that the Nazis lost, and do some research. How many Nazis were lost in that battle? Was it more or less than 1 million dead Nazis?

[K8-EEE]

66. I Really Don't Think That's How It Would Go Down At All

I don't picture there being Alamo-type shootouts, rather, the whole "secret police" scenario where dissidents "disappear" ala Argentina, get abducted or dragged out of their houses at night for being "terrorists."

As I said -- there are a lot of Freepers who honestly believe in one party government and people like Ann Coulter repeating the message that half this country is made up of Traitors. I think probably 30% of America wouldn't mind if queers, liberals, or whatever kind of dissidents get "disappeared."

[DoNotRefill]

67. that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about....

"rather, the whole "secret police" scenario where dissidents "disappear" ala Argentina, get abducted or dragged out of their houses at night for being "terrorists.""

The time to resist effectively is when they come to kick in your door and "disappear" you. And effective resistance means shooting the GeheimStaatsPolizei. Will you die? Sure. But if it ever comes to that, you're going to die anyway. The best you can do is try to take some of them with you, by exercising your basic human right of self-defense. And if enough people do that, pretty soon they are going to run out of people to go kicking in doors to disappear others.

Hopefully, it will never come to that. But if it does, people NEED the ability to defend themselves effectively. Otherwise, they're going to end up in cattlecars going to a place where they will receive "special delousing showers".

[solinvictus]

73. "Nukes and Armies"

First, the ecological impact of nuclear weapons rules them out for use on our own soil. Second, our armies aren't here; they're in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and Europe. All their technology requires a tremendous support network that, frankly, they can't maintain here if we're in the midst of a civil war. All that impressive gadgetry that they show on TV for PR is fragile and high maintenance. It'd be useless after the first month of conflict.

[Beacho]

7. wouldn't really be a 'war', per se

such as the confict between the North and South. I think it would be more of an uprising and civil conflict.

Although it's not exactly as such, but I think it would be closer to 1917, in respect to an out of touch elite, supported by some of the population against the bulk of the population. I would also make a comparison to pre-revolutionary France

I still think that it's going to have to get a lot worse before outright conflict occurs, we're going to see massive demontration(general strikes, etc) before any outright fighting takes place.

If you look at history, people were far worse off in the 30s and no general civil uprising occured then, and things were a lot worse.

[lenidog]

9. I don't think it would be a civil war

as we view one per se, I think it would be much like the Weimar Republic and we would have street battle and who ever had the toughest thugs would win. Most of the population would never get involved.

[MichiganVote]

21. But what's to stop them FROM getting involved?

[rhett o rick]

11. Boy have u not been paying attention. It's here, we are at war now

George said you are either for us or against us. The sides have been drawn. But it ain't the red vs. blue. It's the rich and gullible vs. the moderate middle class and we are losing big time. The war will be over before some people will admit its here. Are the Dem's helping in Washington? Maybe its because they aren't really on our side.

[brainshrub]

13. "Rich & gullible vs the moderate middle class."

Great comment. I'm going to remember that.

[MichiganVote]

16. This is the thought war that always preceeds the blood war

[Selatius]

26. Don't forget the poverty stricken as well as the middle class

Their ranks are swelling.

[MichiganVote]

27. Absolutely. The elite have always underestimated the poor

[Roxy66]

51. Agreed...How many single Moms are pissed?...I know I am!!!

[Al-CIAda]

35. good comment. n/t

[rndmprsn]

12. urban-sub-urban-rural civil war...

not so nicely delineated as N v S.

[morgan2]

17. The bloods vs the sticks?

[MichiganVote]

19. N v. S was even then a relative term

However, ideology, economics, and religion were the triangular pieces that gave rise to dissention on the part of the "Southern" states. So while we are all looking for the shot across the bow, my question today is, who will be the "South" and who will be the "North" and what respurces will each have to wage their war. Clearly the media is its own chess piece. What else?

[Ariana Celeste]

18. All the Republicans really control,

is the Midwest. Dems would win hands down- the blue states hold all of the large industrial capitals.

Remember WW2 all of the blue states were the ones producing the munitions and whatnot- the Midwest is just a bunch of flat land and farm area. Sure the freepers are some angry folk, but they don't have the manufacturing power that the blue states have.

[MichiganVote]

20. Yes, but what do the freepers have in terms of money?

[Ariana Celeste]

28. Money would be irrelevant

what matters is resources

[morgan2]

22. and you need oil

to run those machines.

[Ariana Celeste]

29. since most of our oil comes from other countries,

all that is required is that we have control of where the oil is shipped. we have the west coast, and the northeast. We also have that Alaskan oil Bush is talking about (:puke:)

worst case scenario: other countries decide they want to support the freepers. Saudi Arabia would support the Republicans- but all the others would support the Democrats, since the Democrats haven't bombed them quite as much as the Republicans.

[MichiganVote]

39. Well, I think the Saudi's will fly any "elite" out that they want!!

Seriously, what would the rest of the world think about the Americans having a civil war today? An opportunity to make money? The global community is not a well run machine except by those who seek cheap labor, or so it seems.

[Ariana Celeste]

41. I'm not sure I get what you mean,

but I think that many oil producing countries may see it as a way to make fast cash, and who knows, maybe they will play both sides. As for the world community, I don't see much of them giving a damn. If I didn't catch your meaning, I apologize.

[MichiganVote]

44. You caught it. I was making a wry comment about the Saudi's being

flown out of the US by Bush / Pentagon after 9/11. And I agree, I'm not sure the world community would give a damn either.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Plus, Montana might side with us

They're gradually becoming a blue state. That means that we'd have nukes.

[kineneb]

23. And many of us Californios would go for succession.

If it came down to a shooting "war," the whole west coast might be gone. We have more in common with each other, western Canada, Mexico and the Pacific Rim countries than we do with anything east of the Rockies. Hubby says we will need to get rid of Arnie - should be easy...deport him to Austria.

[MichiganVote]

25. Makes me think that a US civil war would be fractured into more

than a N v. S conflict as previously seen. What about the base closings? I haven't followed what is happening in the West, who is open, who is closed. Still wondering what all this might mean.

(edited spelling)

[kineneb]

49. Not many bases left on west coast

All we have in NorCal is Travis. I think San Deigo has a large Navy installation. Don't know about WA or OR. Seems almost all of our bases were closed down during the first round as a punitive thing. (Nasty Californians voted Dem. so we shut down your bases.) The NeoCons may come to regret it, but their loss is our gain.

[Mythsaje]

47. If it came down to it

you might be surprised where Arnie would come down. He's NOT a fundie...in fact I've heard him on a radio interview where he suggested he thinks all the religious stuff is more or less bullshit. He's a Kennedy by marriage and, in terms of social consciousness, more liberal than conservative.

He's a fiscal conservative, however...something Bush PRETENDED to be...but isn't.

He's not really in their camp. He just wears their uniform.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. The war has already started

It is neighbor against neighbor. And it is still small. But it has started. We're in the early stages of its escalation.

you know ......

A rally here ...... rally there

A protest sign here ....... counter protest sign there

A jeer here ...... a shout there

A push ..... a shove

A punch ..... a club

A knife ...... a gun

Police get called .... sides are drawn .... arrests made ... tril ... protests ... angry mobs on both sides ... a night of civil unrest .... firehoses ...... a tense truce ......

Repeat that .... all over the country

Escalate again ......

And again .....

We're there ..... but only at the starting line ......

[Bluerthanblue]

54. is this...

a song? Lyrics i mean?

if not, should be-
horrible truth, spoken beautifully!

[Stinky The Clown]

61. Nope ... purely train of thought off the top of my head

[Selatius]

30. It would be a rural vs. urban conflict

There would be no real boundaries along blue and red states. Think about it. Pennsylvania went for Kerry in 2004, but there are parts of the state that are heavily Bush.

The country would probably shatter into several smaller states in such a conflict. I could easily see states such as California seceding when things hit the fan. It would be a very personal war where you could find yourself, a city person, pitted against your rural brother.

Rather than look to the Civil War of the 1860s to try to guage what such a conflict would look like, I suggest you look at more recent conflicts in the Balkans or Northern Ireland or even Lebanon before the IDF invaded.

I would argue that would be the new paradigm. I would further argue that such a conflict, like those in the Balkans and Northern Ireland and perhaps even present-day Iraq, would be characterized by atrocity begetting more atrocities. Think mass graves, execution/death squads, and concentration camps with human skeletons type atrocities. It would be a war that disproportionately targets innocent civilians rather than the combatants because they're "with the enemy."

[Ariana Celeste]

31. Good point!

[MichiganVote]

38. Throw in some easily created mercenaries and your case is made

[Harry S Truman]

32. We'd all be better off

This country is too big for our wee brains to manage now. We should be four or five countries and we will by 2150 - there's no doubt about it.
And if that produces a war here, it will be the repuke-christo-fascist-nazis who will start it.

[KansDem]

33. Saw "Hotel Rwanda" last night...

I think it would be more like that than a "North/South" conflict.

[MichiganVote]

40. I haven't been able to bring myself to watch that movie yet.

[DoNotRefill]

42. Itwouldn't be "North/South"

it'd be "51%/49%", and we'd get our asses collectively kicked, mostly because we don't have enough people who know guns.

[MichiganVote]

43. Possibly. But we all know a war is not fought w/guns alone

[DoNotRefill]

45. And we know that those who beat their swords into plowshares...

will plow for those who don't.

You can plan for the upcoming civil unrest by buying lots of cans of oven-cleanser to spray into the face of your attackers. If your attacker instead spent his money buying a nice semi-auto AK-47 and a ton of ammo, you're still going to lose.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. saw that on a Fundie van... along with

"God, Guts, and Guns, thats what made America Great"
and-
"I'm Pro-Life and I vote"


In the end, i'm sure you know- if we INSIST and persist on using force, violence and death to 'get our way' there will be only one person left-
and that person may indeed be 'right'- but what's left to them?????

"live free or die" is my state's motto- that doesn't necessiarly mean fight to the death- i can mean be willing to be killed rather than be lowered to the level of those who will do ANYTHING to get 'their own way'- Gandhi, MLKing, for example- what is life if you can't 'live with your own conscience'-

i'm serious about this, not some 'wide-eyed' 'flower-child'- simply one who has learned from experience that giving back in kind, only helps to kill what you desire so much to overcome.

[DoNotRefill]

53. it's not about getting our way...

"In the end, i'm sure you know- if we INSIST and persist on using force, violence and death to 'get our way' there will be only one person left-
and that person may indeed be 'right'- but what's left to them?????"

it's about not being slaughtered and letting the right have their way.

If you let them kill you without resisting them, you're enabling their activity.

[Bluerthanblue]

55. oh, i'm sorry-

i can see how you would read my post as being one of 'lay down belly up' after re-reading it-

i don't mean not resist- not by ANY stretch- but resistance doesn't have to mean kill or be killed- Passive resistance is not inaction- it's action that doesn't lower you to 'their' level- and destroy EVERYTHING you 'stand' for in the end-

If you 'slaughter them' rather than 'be slaughtered' where is the difference between 'us' and 'them'

Power comes in many forms-

sorry to have not made my point better- and i see yours.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Do you really think passive resistance would work....

against the Neocons in a civil war? They'd be on their own religious jihad. I'm not advocating us going out after them preemptively...what I'm advocating is that if they come at us in violation of the law looking to kill us, we respond in accordance with the law and prevent them from killing us, even if it means that they die. If enough of us don't go meekly to our own deaths, pretty soon they will run out of people to come after us.

Look at every genocide committed during the 20th century. In every case, the targeted population was disarmed, and unable to resist effectively. Being limp and making them carry us into their gas chambers wouldn't inconvenience them in the slightest...shooting them when they come to round us up would.

Passive resistance requires a wide variety of factors for it to be effective....amongst them, there must be a free press, and the government must actually care about how their tactics make them look. Neither of those conditions really exist any more. If Ghandi had been in the old Soviet Union instead of British occupied India, he'd have ended up "disappeared", and his movement would have gone away.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. i really want

to respond to this - but i have to take my son to a b-day party which includes seeing the 'Sith'- and he's trying SO hard to be patient-

one thing to consider till i can get back on- if using violence- if 'killing' those who seek to destroy anyone not 'willing' to bend to thier way of thinking- or be 'controlled' by the threat of 'death' which is how the world has 'operated' so far, if that means really works, then why do we still have un-ending war??? un-ending killing?

The reason i don't believe in abortion LAWS (though i truly would like to see abortion become nearly extinct) is that the problem isn't solved by 'making laws' - people break laws all the time- the problem is much better solved by looking at why people feel the need to do what they do-
because they are in NEED- lacking something- be that money, security, a hope of a 'better life'- even the rich.....

oh, jeez i GOTTA go-
more later i hope... you make me think- thanks

[DoNotRefill]

59. Cool...

look forward to hearing your responses, and enjoy the film.

Regarding your point: it's not something that we can ever STOP. As long as there are people who are willing to use force to either control how we think or if we live, we must remain prepared to fight them. The alternative is to allow them to exterminate us and our outlook, and then call that peace because nobody remains to stand up to them. The quote goes something like: "We made a desert, and called it "peace"."

Look at the Carthaginians and the Romans. They went back and forth at each other, until the Romans finally managed to wipe them out, and totally destroy their culture and home. Wars still happened, but the Romans were never bothered by the Carthaginians again.

[Selatius]

60. I think there's much weight to what you say

No, I don't think I or anyone else would advocate pre-emptively killing folks on the right. Rather, what I advocate is violence only as a last resort. If it is truly an issue of self-defense, or even the more desperate scenario of self-preservation, then I believe violence becomes a valid avenue, but I would qualify that by stating that all possible peaceful remedies are tried first. If none of them work, then it would be clear what the final answer is to everybody. Ultimately, I believe people have the right to defend themselves or their families from annihilation.

[DoNotRefill]

64. That's true, almost everywhere except DC...

eom

[Bluerthanblue]

65. well, he's off to watch good triumph...

..... over evil- (i hope, i'm not a SW person myself)

i had an hour to think while driving, and wasn't sure how to best vocalize my thoughts- i clearly understand where you are coming from-
if someone held a knife to one of my kids throat, i wouldn't 'not act'- i'm human to the core- but i also know people often have to be 'taught' to look at the 'others' as the 'enemy'- as something less than human, as 'evil' incarnate-

My Dad fought in WWII and after his death i came across his stuff from 'the service'- he talked very very little about his experiences- but they clearly effected him- One booklet i saved, is a thin little pamphlet that tells soldiers that they have to understand that the person they are going to kill is NOT 'like' you- that they are something other than 'human'- that they don't have a wife and kids- were never a boy riding his bike, or eating a pb&j sandwich- that 'they' were EVIL- that if you don't kill him- you are not only a 'bad soldier' you are hurting your fellow soldier, and your country-

And, the notion of looking at my neighbor, who happens to be a 'republican'- as evil, as 'less than human' as 'the enemy' is something i'm not willing to do- and unless he held a gun to my childs head- or anyone else's i would be unwilling to do him physical harm- i DO posess several firearms, all were left to my son by my father, who made sure all his kids knew how to handle a gun, properly, and would spend many a summer afternoon target shooting with us- we live in a very rural area, and occassionaly had to defend our livestock from persistant preditators-

i killed one preditator myself- and afterwards, lay down on the ground beside the animal and wept over an animal..who did indeed mean to kill an animal who i was 'entrusted' to keep safe (sheep-not meat wool animals)

But in this revolution we will be fighting 'our brothers and sisters'- LITERALLY in my case- my siblings hold vastly different views than i do- could i kill them? what would life be afterwards?

Please click on this link, this is a LONG article, but it speaks about how 'war' is sold to us, and how we are USED by 'war' ....

<http://bolivia.indymedia.org/es/2004/06/10040.shtml>

war is never the answer- the REAL change has to begin at the very start- at childhood- where children are nurtured and cared for, and treated NOT as 'object' but as the FUTURE leaders, and citizens that can put an end to war- and give hope for the future-

sounds like a bunch of idealistic shit, i know- but it IS the only answer- Bush got the way he did because he was TAUGHT that his 'way' was acceptable- and it is NOT! we have to start the revolution at the cradle in each one of our own lives-

And encourage each other- i'd rather be dead, than live in a kill or be killed world- because that isn't living- it's existing.

ever read Beloved by Toni Morrison?

there is a fate worse than death-

thanks for listening to me rant-

[DoNotRefill]

68. Sith isn't a "Good triumphs over Evil" movie...

It's the exact opposite. Almost all the good guys die, and a "good guy" goes bad. I'd tell you more, but it would be a major spoiler. Expect, however, your son to come home disturbed.

[DoNotRefill]

69. The dehumanization of the enemy....

isn't done to encourage hatred so much, it's done to make it easier for the people to respond without hesitation, so that they don't die because they hesitated while the other guy didn't.

You talk about killing your siblings....would your siblings do something to necessitate their being killed? I don't support killing for political reasons, but only to save the lives of others. If you are not doing anything wrong and somebody tries to kill you, the best you can do is kill them first, unless you're a deity. I don't care how many pro-Bush stickers somebody has on their car, it doesn't make me want to harm them. It makes me think they are misguided, but not that they pose an immediate threat to my life. Now if somebody is posing an immediate threat to my life, I don't care WHAT their politics are, I would have to act, because they pose a threat to my life. For example, in another thread, a DUer here said something about pointing a spear gun at me. While I'm sure he didn't mean LITERALLY pointing a weapon at me, if he did actually point a weapon at me in person and act in a manner that made me think he was trying to kill me, I'd have no choice but to react, despite the fact that I'm sure we'd agree on most political issues if we sat down and compared them.

War isn't always the answer. But given a selection of very bad alternatives, war can indeed be the lesser of the evils. I may have an extremely cynical outlook, or I may just be a realist. But while I hope that we will all live in a world at peace one day, I realize that it can never happen. Only the dead have seen an end to war.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. well, you

were right- almost all the 'good guys' died-
He's in his room, re-enacting some of the most 'dramatic scenes'- i'm clueless as to Star Wars, but he was with folks i trust, and guess they all talked alot about the movie after-

i guess i'm not really sure how to respond to your reply..... while i don't dis-agree with much that you have said, the 'reality' of 'war' is that it isn't only those who point thier spear gun at you- or their double barreled shotgun- or thier carbine...that die- and suffer, and are changed forever-
Vigilante justice is what i see happening in this f-d up world- yes, i HATE that 9-11 happened- but war in Afganistan hasn't made this world any better. And the war in Iraq has killed many many people who pointed NOTHING at anyone- who simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or stumbled over one of our un-exploded ordanances, or 'looked' suspicious-
Please don't see this as a 'dis' on those soldiers who serve, and served in 'good concience' - feeling that they had to 'honor' thier promise to 'protect and defend'- it is those who SENT them there those who CHOSE to 'opt' for war, where there was absolutely no threat to the US- whose hands are covered with the blood of thousands-
i don't think your perspective is cynical- but if i couldn't embrace the concept that instilling hope, and working for change in the lives of ALL human beings was nothing more than a pipe-dream, was a total imposibility.... i'd find myself 6' under- cause i'm a person who has to cling to hope in the worst of circumstances, or i self-destruct. If all we are doing is managing to 'survive' or 'exist' without moving everyone forward to a 'better tomorrow' what is the point????-
i've faced death a few times- and the closest i came, was by my own hand, in the face of a future devoid of 'hope'-

How do you manage to look towards a future that promises nothing but history repeating itself, over and over? i'm too ..... selfish? to manage that myself... i want to LIVE if i'm going to 'be' here- not just exist. Hope this doesn't come off sounding pious- i don't mean that at all- i just can't look at the future as inevitible endless wars....

[DoNotRefill]

71. I don't add to it.

"How do you manage to look towards a future that promises nothing but history repeating itself, over and over?"

One thing you need to understand....I don't view justifiable self-defense as vigilante-ism.

The other thing is that I get great satisfaction from doing my job. So far, I've worked for two of the three branches of the government (State, not Federal) in capacities of helping people who need help. Every day that I go to work, I KNOW that I will affect people's lives....some positively, some negatively. But I know that the effect I have on them is often short-lived...because there's a small core of people I see over and over and over again. Even so, I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I do is of vital importance. It's like the trash collectors.... some people look down their noses at them, but if it weren't for them, the trash wouldn't get picked up. By doing my job, I help people who need help. Yeah, at times I see things that really, REALLY bother me. I see virtually every variety of mankind being horrible to mankind. But I like to think that I make things less horrible for at least some of the victims. That, in and of itself, is worth doing. And by doing it, I can sleep at night without my conscience bothering me. And life is a journey, not a destination...no matter what, it'll keep going on long after we are all gone.

[Michael_Bush]

48. Liberals would get their butts handed to them for two reasons

The majority of Americans who inhabit the great middle/muddle of American politics doesn't see the need for revolution and so we would be vastly outnumbered. Secondly, we would be outgunned.

Despite my best efforts, not enough liberals have guns or know how to use them. Funny how so many talk about wanting a "revolution" but then work so hard to ensure they disarmed.

In the late '60s people felt disenfanchised enough that there was real potential for a revolution. Today most people still fear muslims more than RW neocons, till that changes, your chances are slim and none of doing anything other than getting arrested.

Also, revolutions are usually ugly and destructive. We threw out an occupying power and already had functioning governmental entities. If we had one today it would be more like the French Revolution which ended up back with a monarchy and an emperor and then a few crappy governments that gave us WWI and WWII. No thanks.

[salin]

46. the public has no stomache for it.

I live in red country. But when something violent breaks out- most of the public is revolted. When a crazy person ended up stock piling guns... and went on a rampage that killed a local police officer... there was an overall call to curb some gun laws to prevent someone with his history of mental instability from being able to stock pile guns. No seen organized NRA resistance - as there is popular support- against the violence.

Folks around here were mostly appalled by the Schaivo protests - esp the spector of a group that wanted to storm the clinic to "save" her. Did I say that I live in red (and religious) country?

I fear some violent outbursts - due to excessive and nonstop inflamatory speech - now coming straight out of the senate rather than just on rushradio. But the public reaction... maybe a few emboldened nut cases try to repeat the outbursts... but overall - shock, revulsion, just as there was to the OKC bombings... which in the aftermath saw a mass exodus away from the militia movement which was growing at that time.

Freepers do not represent mainstream america, which is pretty moderate, and very 'soft' (as in - not ready to take up guns against one another.)

[leftofthedial]

62. look at the county maps from the last elections

I think there is one purple one that incorporated the margin of "victory."

THe fundy wack jobs and those enslaved by the wealthy are distributed throughout the US and will fight to the death.

[solinvictus]

74. "Life During Wartime"

I think of this song every time I see one of these threads.
Life During Wartime (1979)
--------------------------

Heard of a van that is loaded with weapons,
packed up and ready to go
Heard of some gravesites, out by the highway,
a place where nobody knows
The sound of gunfire, off in the distance,
I'm getting used to it now
Lived in a brownstone, lived in the ghetto,
I've lived all over this town

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
this ain't no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey,
I ain't got time for that now

Transmit the message, to the receiver,
hope for an answer some day
I got three passports, a couple of visas,
I don't even know my real name
High on a hillside, the trucks are loading,
everything's ready to roll
I sleep in the daytime, I work in the nightime,
I might not ever get home

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
this ain't no fooling around
This ain't no mudd club, or C. B. G. B.,
I ain't got time for that now
Heard about Houston? Heard about Detroit?
Heard about Pittsburgh, P. A.?
You oughta know not to stand by the window
somebody might see you up there
I got some groceries, some peanut butter,
to last a couple of days
But I ain't got no speakers, ain't got no
headphones, ain't got no records to play

Why stay in college? Why go to night school?
Gonna be different this time
Can't write a letter, can't send a postcard,
I can't write nothing at all
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
this ain't no fooling around
I'd like to kiss you, I'd love you hold you
I ain't got no time for that now

Trouble in transit, got through the roadblock,
we blended with the crowd
We got computer, we're tapping phone lines,
I know that ain't allowed
We dress like students, we dress like housewives,
or in a suit and a tie
I changed my hairstyle, so many times now,
I don't know what I look like!
You make me shiver, I feel so tender,
we make a pretty good team
Don't get exhausted, I'll do some driving,
you ought to get some sleep
Get your instructions, follow directions,
then you should change your address
Maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day,
whatever you think is best
Burned all my notebooks, what good are
notebooks? They won't help me survive
My chest is aching, burns like a furnace,
the burning keeps me alive
Try to stay healthy, physical fitness,
don't want to catch no disease
Try to be careful, don't take no chances,
you better watch what you say

[solinvictus]

75. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on resistance...

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more -- we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ........... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
- Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

[MichiganVote]

76. Reminds me of the Iraqi "insurgents"