Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Is it just me? >

Is it just me?

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Is it just me?

Old 07-22-2011, 08:44 AM
  #11  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

comments in RED:


Originally Posted by Barto1 View Post
UN "peacekeepers" have never lost a fight that I'm aware of...
Know of any U.N. peacekeeping missions where there was combat and the U.S. was not the fighting force by a large majority ?

there is no end to their force size or world funding - Your back country boys will be starving - they won't have any fight left in them. How they gonna get water, food, bread?? Those things would not be available during a currency crash - transportation would stop - money not available - fuel, no bullets, supplies.
I beg to differ....guerrilla fighters do not depend on conventional supply. Further, in AMERICA, where we are fighting an invading force (if it can be called such), all citizens will be supporting our guerrillas...and without currency, we would revert to the original system for wealth transferrance, barter. I have no doubt there will be resistance...well-fed and well-funded.

Tea Party?? GIVE ME A BREAK! They are more of the same government and same policies that have gotten us here.
I don't think so...TEA PARTY is bipartisan and conservative, without regard for 'status quo'. Again, I beg to differ.

YOU clearly do not understand the problem - you suggest the ballot box solves all - since when??? Name one president that has been good for democracy - that has followed the constitution since the 1900s (and survived the presidency). and I'll come back at you with facts, signed executive orders, etc that exactly defy the written word in the constitution.
The ballot box is the ONLY way to solve our problems. Unless you encourage folks to shoot the president, speaker of the house, vice president and house majority leaders ? I do not espouse such measure as they are unwinnable. The ballot box is incontrovertible. You have no other resolution other than to give up. You french ?

I'm a bit embarrassed for you...Are you NOT watching and listening to Greece? Are not seeing the "callateral" they are being required to put up for their next bail out? Do you think it would be different in the USA?
the purpose behind all these machinations is to avoid that which is happening in Greece. The culture of government handouts is entrenched and the struggles you see are cultural struggles and political struggles...both for power, both for control...the socialists cannot sustain the amount of giveaways , as we are witnessing in Europe. And let's not talk about embarrassment, or else your parents would have changed their names a long time ago....

The banks and investors are now dictating government policy. Their debt is only 200% GDP. Ours is around 575% GDP - but alas we have a central bank. NO PARTY can change that. No ballot box can reduce that debt - take 100% of all corporate wages and private incomes and you still can't cover it. WTF are you missing...
well, WTF are YOU missing, when you're told that cutting costs, lowering taxes, maintaining the current debt ceiling will resolve the issue, albeit eventually ? Maybe you espouse we should dump the rat poison in the Kool-Aid and snuff it ? Feel free...

Or perhaps you've never spent a second doing your owne research - you are trusting the government - cool make that bet - its guys like me that will be buying guys like you assets for pennies on the dollar if it turns out I'm right.
And when it turns out your wrong, then you'll get used to the taste of that big crap sandwich you're making for yourself....

If I'm wrong - that is the very best part - I still make lots more money in this secular bull market in commodities.
hey...this is AMerica...go for it.

Either way - I'm prepared and you can trust your tea party - I'll trust the tea.
your scenarios will never come to fruition...but hell, play Chicken Little...the world is full of conspiracy theorists...so don your tinfoil hat and have at it, bingo.
bergall is offline  
Old 07-22-2011, 08:59 AM
  #12  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,997
Default

With reference to revolution, this is purely hypothetical. For revolution you must first have revolting circumstances (question for the student of history: who am I obliquely quoting here?). We are not there yet, folks. What are revolting circumstances? Watching your children and parents starve to death, in the millions. Being expected to eat roots and bark every spring because the corrupt and incompetent regime cannot provide a viable agricultural or economic infrastructure.

Still, as a hypothetical . . .

If there were revolution, why would it be assumed the US soldiers would do what the US president and military hierarchy demanded of them? It is inherent in revolution that established authority is shattered. Consider the French Revolution. Consider the Algerian war of independence. If the revolution has a just cause, are US soldiers going to fire on their fellow citizens or are they going to expropriate their weapons and bring them into the service of their brothers and sisters in the revolution?

So, in a hypothetical US revolution the US military may not be effective in quelling the revolution. The next question is what effect would UN forces have. In many UN efforts, the US has formed the backbone of the effort. The UN effort in Korea 1950-1953 minus the US contribution -- about 90% of the effort in the histories I have read -- would have resulted in an easy victory for North Korea in 1950. What about other UN activities? So, you have a UN force, far from its base of supply, fighting in the US. I assume these troops are of . . . how shall I say it . . . limited committment. They are playing by the marquess of queensbury rules and don't have the same esprit de corps as French Foreign Legion troops or US Navy Seals or other elite troops. What would they confront here? If you study your history of revolutionary warfare in the 20th century -- Indochina/Vietnam, Algeria -- things can get very unpleasant for the externally imposed forces of order. In Algeria troops had their throats cut, they were disembowelled, rocks were sown back up in their body cavities, their privates were cut off and stuffed back into their mouths, Mr happy hanging out. Unless you are REALLY committed, most soldiers are going to be pretty unmotivated under these circumstances. All I'm saying is I wouldn't bet on the UN troops under these circumstances. I don't know of too many revolutionary conflicts in the second half of the 20th century that went against the revolutionaries.

But . . . all of this is hypothetical. We are far from having the kind of circumstances that would breed revolution in the US today.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 07-22-2011, 09:07 AM
  #13  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,997
Default

An important element that Bergall references tangentially is that in revolutionary war, the People provide a very significant amount of support to the gun toting revolutionary soldiers. The whole body of the People -- perhaps 95% of whom are not active in a military fashion -- is mobilized in the revolutionary effort. Again, read your histories of 20th century revolutionary war such as in Algeria and French Indochina/Vietnam. If you merely have insurrection and some malcontents who are not perceived as a legitimate force by "the People," this isn't really the revolution. Of course, sometimes revolution is imposed on the People who otherwise would just rather not make waves and get on with life. In both Indochina/Vietnam and in Algeria, the revolutionaries sometimes forced the locals to support their cause or suffer very grave circumstances -- like 6' deep grave consequences, or worse.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 07-22-2011, 09:14 AM
  #14  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: MO
Posts: 126
Default

Thanks for missing the point.
Barto1 is offline  
Old 07-23-2011, 08:39 AM
  #15  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

I don't think the AMerican revolution descended to your own standards for what would be required for armed revolt. We were not eating pinecones and dirt...yet...we took up arms against the greatest military power on earth at the time. I think armed revolt can take place over ideas and ideals as well, and if we're on the verge of starvation and millions are dead from drought and famine, the revolution is lost, if it ever got off the ground. I do believe there are those who would make the attempt, but I also believe they would be taken down quickly and hard.

I did allude 'tangentially' (great word...!) to the fact that it is not only the immediate combatants who engage in revolt. THey cannot succeed without populist support and once the general populace is engaged, you have an effective 'army' of hundreds of thousands. Other than these 2 'niggling' points, I agree with you 100%.

And I dont see any 'point' that's been missed. Rather, an opinion has been challenged and/or impeached.
bergall is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.