A new Revolution in America, how could it happen?

Page 4 of 7 [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

06 May 2009, 10:54 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
The destruction of living standards of the working classes can be the catalyst for revolt, war is another, both are looking likely.

To assume that the working class is unarmed is naive, the vast majority of the Armed forces are Working Class. So any concept of armed revolt will by necessity require the mutiny of large portions of the military. Ruveyn is quite correct that if a civilian militia attempted to overthrow a government fully supported by the military they would effectively be committing suicide.

The goal of a serious revolutionary is to carry out said revolution with the absolute least amount of conflict. This can only be achieved by raising the political conciousness of the working class (in the case of Marxism). If this is done in a methodical and principled manner this group can shut down a country and bring a government to its knees without the firing of a single bullet.


one does not necessarily need a revolution, there cnan be seccession as well. Although this could lead to a revoultion indirectly.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

06 May 2009, 11:03 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.

During the American Revolution, the insurgents and the British regulars were equally armed (or nearly so). The Brits were ahead on training and discipline, but that advantage was whittled away during the course of the war, when the American troops received battle field training and discipline.

If you want to see what happens when lightly armed citizens go up against the tanks, look at what happened in Tsieneman Square in China or in Hungary in 1957. It was pure slaughter. Your 18th century minuteman or right wing extremist in camo has zero chance against a modern armed force.

In addition the number of Americans who really, really want to have a revolution is very tiny. In the American Revolution is was 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalist and 1/3 wait and see which way the wind blows. Very few Americans really want to overthrow the current government. They would much rather alter it through the elective process as deficient as that is.

Not if you get the military on your side. The roman military killed whatever rulers they did not like


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 May 2009, 11:29 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.

During the American Revolution, the insurgents and the British regulars were equally armed (or nearly so). The Brits were ahead on training and discipline, but that advantage was whittled away during the course of the war, when the American troops received battle field training and discipline.

If you want to see what happens when lightly armed citizens go up against the tanks, look at what happened in Tsieneman Square in China or in Hungary in 1957. It was pure slaughter. Your 18th century minuteman or right wing extremist in camo has zero chance against a modern armed force.

In addition the number of Americans who really, really want to have a revolution is very tiny. In the American Revolution is was 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalist and 1/3 wait and see which way the wind blows. Very few Americans really want to overthrow the current government. They would much rather alter it through the elective process as deficient as that is.

Not if you get the military on your side. The roman military killed whatever rulers they did not like


A military takeover of the US government would no doubt be an interesting first step towards a military dictatorship. It's
not exactly what I would feel is progress.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

06 May 2009, 12:18 pm

Sand wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.

During the American Revolution, the insurgents and the British regulars were equally armed (or nearly so). The Brits were ahead on training and discipline, but that advantage was whittled away during the course of the war, when the American troops received battle field training and discipline.

If you want to see what happens when lightly armed citizens go up against the tanks, look at what happened in Tsieneman Square in China or in Hungary in 1957. It was pure slaughter. Your 18th century minuteman or right wing extremist in camo has zero chance against a modern armed force.

In addition the number of Americans who really, really want to have a revolution is very tiny. In the American Revolution is was 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalist and 1/3 wait and see which way the wind blows. Very few Americans really want to overthrow the current government. They would much rather alter it through the elective process as deficient as that is.

Not if you get the military on your side. The roman military killed whatever rulers they did not like


A military takeover of the US government would no doubt be an interesting first step towards a military dictatorship. It's
not exactly what I would feel is progress.


Neither would I, just trying to make the point the military is not always on the governments side. :D


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


chris2012
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1

18 Jun 2010, 6:01 pm

Many people think a New revolution is not possible; however, if the military splits into two, and one side of the military sides with defending the people revolting, the revolution will be in full swing! People in the military are still people. Every American will eventually choose a side; and I believe the men and women of the military will choose the side his or, her family has sided.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Jun 2010, 6:15 pm

John_Browning wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.

Actually, the civilian population has several million more guns.

ruveyn wrote:
If you want to see what happens when lightly armed citizens go up against the tanks, look at what happened in Tsieneman Square in China or in Hungary in 1957. It was pure slaughter. Your 18th century minuteman or right wing extremist in camo has zero chance against a modern armed force.

Actually, in those cases they were completely unarmed protesters.


Even so, against tanks, copters and automatic weapons they would not have stood a chance.

ruveyn



eatsandune
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1

16 May 2011, 3:27 am

I believe we don't need weapons for a revolution. If everyone stopped paying taxes to our corrupt goverment, it would or will collapse. I do understand they could imprison the non-tax payors but who would be left? Sounds like the original tea party to me.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

16 May 2011, 9:35 pm

The_Cucumber wrote:
So what do you think? Is it possible we'll see a new revolution in the United States? And how would such a revolution come about?


It will when things reach the point where the majority of the population is living and working under slave-like servitude for the new aristocracy formed by the wealthy elite.

In short, when most of us are working minimum wage, little to no benefits jobs with no future, dying under age 60 from the stressful work and living from paycheck to paycheck barely making ends meet... and we start seeing how the wealthy elite spend billions and billions on fancy cars, yachts and other splurge-like things so reminiscent of the old aristocracy...

thats when the fuse will be lit.


And it can't happen soon enough imo.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2011, 6:53 am

eatsandune wrote:
I believe we don't need weapons for a revolution. If everyone stopped paying taxes to our corrupt goverment, it would or will collapse. I do understand they could imprison the non-tax payors but who would be left? Sounds like the original tea party to me.


For most of us our taxes are withheld before we ever see our wages.

ruveyn



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

17 May 2011, 8:28 am

I think war may eventually break out between Democrats and Republicans.
I don't know if "revolution" would be the right word for that scenario, perhaps "civil war" would be more fitting.

Most Americans are unhappy with the state of the country, and most Americans blame the opposite political party for their unhappiness. The rhetoric is getting stronger and uglier as politicians on both sides stir up anger to win elections. People are encouraged to view members of the opposing party as idiots and monsters who are destroying the country.

I see it starting this way: violence breaks out at a political rally. Members of one party attack the other (personally, I think this most likely at a Tea Party rally, though not necessarily instigated by Tea Party members). People see it on the news. Individuals in various cities commit "hate crimes" in retaliation. Violence leads to more violence. Politicians will at first call for peace, but if that fails they will either flee (they will be targets for assassination) or join the fight as "leaders" who will stay well away from any actual fighting.

The root causes would be (as many others here have suggested) economic and social in nature. I propose that when people look around to see who is to blame for these hardships, they will be encouraged (ARE being encouraged, really) to blame a political party. When and if the anger boils over into violence, that too will be directed at the opposing party.

Unless the masses wake up and realize both parties are screwing the people, which seems unlikely anytime soon.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

17 May 2011, 9:02 am

ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.


I completely disagree.

There was a time I would have thought likewise, and while the government has more guns (or so we believe) we (as a nation) were INCAPABLE of dominating a nation not much larger than the state of California, and even then we could not hold even one city for any length of time. We operated out of Baghdad from day one and the Green Zone was the only location IN the city we held control over. Outside of that we had no ability to maintain control and that was a war zone.

In the USA, if a revolution happened, the government would be incapable of locking down even one major city indefinitely by sheer military force. The government would rely on fear and intimidation to control the populace. They might get a lot of people who are too cowardly to resist, but those that do resist will be outside the cities and there won't be the manpower to go after them. The indications are that the government could not rely on US soldiers to readily take up arms against their own people and if they bring in foreign troops from England, France, Germany, etc. it would only be more bloody.

The emperor has no clothes, and people are waking up to that reality. Government control relies almost entirely on the perception that they could utterly crush EVERYONE who refuses to bow the knee. They make public examples on a regular basis just to keep everyone else deluded as to how far their power actually reaches.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2011, 10:23 am

zer0netgain wrote:

The emperor has no clothes, and people are waking up to that reality. Government control relies almost entirely on the perception that they could utterly crush EVERYONE who refuses to bow the knee. They make public examples on a regular basis just to keep everyone else deluded as to how far their power actually reaches.


And what if the nasty government sets out to crush everyone (not in the government kabal). Sort of like Qaddafi.

What if the government assumes a take-no-prisoners policy?

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

17 May 2011, 12:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:

The emperor has no clothes, and people are waking up to that reality. Government control relies almost entirely on the perception that they could utterly crush EVERYONE who refuses to bow the knee. They make public examples on a regular basis just to keep everyone else deluded as to how far their power actually reaches.


And what if the nasty government sets out to crush everyone (not in the government kabal). Sort of like Qaddafi.

What if the government assumes a take-no-prisoners policy?

ruveyn


Last I checked, it's not working for Qaddafi.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2011, 1:45 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:

The emperor has no clothes, and people are waking up to that reality. Government control relies almost entirely on the perception that they could utterly crush EVERYONE who refuses to bow the knee. They make public examples on a regular basis just to keep everyone else deluded as to how far their power actually reaches.


And what if the nasty government sets out to crush everyone (not in the government kabal). Sort of like Qaddafi.

What if the government assumes a take-no-prisoners policy?

ruveyn


Last I checked, it's not working for Qaddafi.


Only because of outside interference. The anti-Qaddafi forces do not have enough clout for even a standoff.

ruveyn



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 May 2011, 10:13 pm

As long as the majority of people are able to stay relatively in their comfort zones I can’t see them doing much no matter what. If ever enough of those comforts and services they take for granted are gone then the possibilities could start to become realities in terms of civil unrest. At that time anything could set of a chain reaction.
Remember that the chain of events that led up to WWI started with the assassination of two people.

A good percentage of the US military would defect from the government before they allow themselves to become the tools of oppression (or suppression). If they join the revolutionaries then it stands to reason that they will bring with them some of the US military assets in their control.
For most of the fighting revolutionaries it will be guerrilla warfare in the form of sabotage, hit and run raids, booby traps, long range precision rifle fire on select targets, harassment and interdiction, etc…..

It will not be fun because losses and suffering on both sides will be staggering and there is nothing guaranteed as to the final outcome.
If it lasts too long then the revolutionaries will likely start to turn on each other over differences and split the cause up into a bunch of little personal wars.

:?

Sand wrote;

Quote:
A military takeover of the US government would no doubt be an interesting first step towards a military dictatorship. It's
not exactly what I would feel is progress.


You apparently don't have a very high opinion of the character and integrity of the US military as a whole.
Or, as usual, you just don't get the point...........



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 May 2011, 11:03 pm

Raptor wrote:
As long as the majority of people are able to stay relatively in their comfort zones I can’t see them doing much no matter what. If ever enough of those comforts and services they take for granted are gone then the possibilities could start to become realities in terms of civil unrest. At that time anything could set of a chain reaction.
Remember that the chain of events that led up to WWI started with the assassination of two people.

A good percentage of the US military would defect from the government before they allow themselves to become the tools of oppression (or suppression). If they join the revolutionaries then it stands to reason that they will bring with them some of the US military assets in their control.
For most of the fighting revolutionaries it will be guerrilla warfare in the form of sabotage, hit and run raids, booby traps, long range precision rifle fire on select targets, harassment and interdiction, etc…..

It will not be fun because losses and suffering on both sides will be staggering and there is nothing guaranteed as to the final outcome.
If it lasts too long then the revolutionaries will likely start to turn on each other over differences and split the cause up into a bunch of little personal wars.

:?

Sand wrote;
Quote:
A military takeover of the US government would no doubt be an interesting first step towards a military dictatorship. It's
not exactly what I would feel is progress.


You apparently don't have a very high opinion of the character and integrity of the US military as a whole.
Or, as usual, you just don't get the point...........
Exactly.