Well as we look down the end of Empire

[nadinbrzezinski]

and what is or what isn't a civil war I hate to say it, but we have a problem with definitions.

For most Americans the image of what a civil war is driven by Hollywood images of the American Civil War, or the War between the States. This is a romantic view of war, driven by set battles, actual front lines (never mind it wasn't that well defined) and for the most part soldiers marching forth, in Napoleonic formations, with gleaming bayonets, and flags.

There are some problems with these images, since by the end of the war it looked more like oh... WW I would look two generations later. Yes, earth works, mortars, artillery and even the first manned machine guns... which were not used that often since the Ordnance Department had a problem with wasting that much ammo.

It also had some other modern components that the Napoloeonic war didn't have, such as a prelude to the medical system we have today, with medics, field ambulances, field hospitals, all the way to rear area hospitals and medical evacuation using trains. Why some historians call this civil war a modern war, the first modern war. But it is still ingrained in the mind of americans as to what defines a civil war.

Well something happened on the way to the forum, and civil wars have changed in anture and objectives.

What they have in common are two or more sides... which are at times uniformed, but many a times not.

For examples of this see the Central American conflicts during the 1980s. Both the Frente Farabundo Marti and the Sandinistas wore blue jeans, shorts, T-Shirts, the closest they got to a uniform was a bandanna...

Now the Contras wore a uniform, supplied by uncle sam, your taxes at work... and by then the Sandinista Army wore a uniform since they were the central government.

Other places people have worn things that are closer to uniforms, such as the Lebanese civil war, where all sides wore uniforms supplied by the different outside forces. Hence the Falange wore what looked like the IDF uniform, and their opponents wore Syrian uniforms... care to guess who provided what?

Then the most recent mess, the Afghani northern Alliance didn't have a uniform, until we provided them in 2002... and we provided them due to Red Cross requirements and I guess not to shoot at them.

The Ustasi in Yugoslavia had a uniform, but their couterparts wore jeans and T-Shirts and shirts... and so it goes.

We also need to have both sides having control of actual geographic areas....

Look at Mexico... the Zapatistas CONTROL a good portion of Chiapas... PERIOD...

Of course the other front are the drug dealers who do control, de facto some of the northern cities and no, they do not share any common interests with the Zapatistas.

Now in a theoretical civil war in the US... I can see some regions that would declare independence and go into that kind of a mode easily... I can also foresee them wearing uniforms... as the militias do have uniforms.

Now another requirement is some foreign recognition, why the South needed that from European powers, strangely outside of ONE Hollywood movie I cannot remember anybody going into that aspect of that civil war.

Oh and finally we have that requirement of using military forces...

Now if this remains a police matter, in the US... then we will not cross that fateful line... but then again SWAT and GUARD units could be used, and they do muddy the definitions.

Regardless I am using the ICRC definitions of what is an internal conflict... and I realize in the current environment is quite possible. I also know that for many on DU... in the US, this is not possible. Why? This is horrific... and a step none wants to even consider. But lets examine what we have right now.

Groups that do not recognize the central government... check
Groups using the language of violent revolution.... check
Groups trained in paramilitaries (militias)... check
Groups that actually fear the power of the central government... check.
Increasing violence... check
Increasing normalization of that violence... check
Oh and increasing recognition that the Empire is falling apart... check
Economic pressures... check

So instead of hiding head in sand, it is time to actually discuss this seriously, and trying to find a way to reach across before it is too late. I personally fear it is too late, but suffice it to say... set battles, gleaming bayonets, the wind ruffling the banners... is not the way this is going to happen.

Oh and I do expect a few folks to poo poo this... as being just fanciful or worst. Remember the posting rules... about personal attacks...

[Taverner]

1. Considering they fired the first few shots...I tend to agree

They meaning the New Confederates...Think the WV Church Shooting, the murder of Dr Tillman and many others...

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. And now we are having activists on that side getting shot and killed too

not good.

We also have the language of the other...

The violence is just accelerating.

[Leftist Agitator]

What WV church shooting?

:shrug:

[LuvNewcastle]

14. I think they mean the one in TN.

[Taverner]

16. My bad - yes the one in TN

Church Shooting in Tenn. Ends With 2 Dead, 7 Injured
07/28/2008

(UPDATE 02/05/09: Tennessee Church Shooter to Plead Guilty)

Two people are dead and seven are injured after a man entered a Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, Tenn., Sunday morning and began firing a shotgun during a children-led service until other churchgoers were able to apprehend him.

According to the Associated Press, Police arrested Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell, Tenn., and are holding him on $1 million bond. Adkisson allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and opened fire with a 12-gauge shotgun. One of the deceased victims, 60-year-old Greg McKinley, reportedly shielded several others from the bullets. The other person who was killed was 61-year-old Linda Kraeger. Of the seven who were injured, four were listed in critical condition and another in serious condition at the University of Tennessee Medical Center. No children were harmed.

Numerous church members took video of the assault on cell phones and cameras and have turned the footage over to police.

According to police reports, the suspect was able to conceal his weapon in order to walk through the entryway of the church into the main portion of the sanctuary. No members of the church had ever seen the man before. The FBI is assisting in the investigation.

More information was revealed through an Agence France-Presse story. After more investigation, police determined that Adkisson is unemployed and has a bitter distaste for the “liberal movement.” They concluded this after recovering a four-page letter that the suspect wrote. It also appears from the letter that the suspect acted alone.

The Unitarian Universalist congregation where the shooting occurred welcomes homosexuals to worship and houses meetings for a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

This latest tragedy reveals the need for churches across the country to beef up security and to examine their current practices.


<SNIP>

They are taking this to our churches - trying to kill our children

[cali]

3. most Americans may or may not envision the U.S. Civil war

when they here the term, but I'll wager most DUers don't. And no, despite your fevered longing for a dystopian future in garish hollywood technicolor, we are not going to be in a hot civil war a la Bosnia in the next year or three. beyond that, I'll make no predictions. People who actually know something about history don't go off making predictions left and right. You've predicted dire dystopian shit is imminent so many times, that it's a DU standard.

And no, I'm not afraid to look at the horrific or to say anything is possible. The world is a horrific place on a meta scale.

As for your list of indicators:

1) as there have been throughout U.S. history

2) Ditto

3) ditto again

4) and again.

5) Evidence for that claim? Statistics?

6) one could reasonably argue that the glorification and normalization of violence has a long history in this country.

7) so what? All Empires wane. And who has increasing recognition of it? Why is it germane to your argument? Or rather your non-argument.

Evem of you were correct- and your record sucks when it comes to your doomsday predictions, why would discussing it seriously on DU make a spit's worth of difference. If forces that powerful and implacable are working, talking about it on DU hardly makes a difference.

As for personal attacks, your statement that says that anyone who disagrees with you has his/her head in the sand, would seem to qualify.

I call 'em as I see them and I see this as simply another piss poor prediction from you based on no real evidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. From the posting guidelines

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leftist Agitator]

8. The difference is that they are destroying our nation with their craziness.

If they want to start an armed insurrection, I will gladly fight to the death to save what is left of this country and its Constitution.

EDIT: THIS is what we are up against:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6554364

Yes, treating their insanity with kid gloves is undoubtedly for the best.

[cali]

9. it's not imminent.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. What happens happens. All we can do is live in the present and try to effect the changes we believe in.

[el_bryanto]

20. If they break the law bring them to justice

What's wrong with that?

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. That is the language of revolt that I speak about

and no, it should not be treated wiht kid gloves. The problem is... how close it is to actual incitement and how much it is crying fire in a crowded theater.

Yes there is freedom of speech. And I am sure some will defend this on those grounds... but Freedom of Speech does have limits

[armyowalgreens]

45. In situations where it is not clear whether the language used is covered by the 1st amendment...

I'm likely to play it safe and say that it is protected. Better to be safe and overprotective than accidentally give up all our free speech rights one vague case at a time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Well it depends

if the host says riot and nothing happens... first amendment, but if there is a riot and somebody is hurt... then he can be hauled in front of the judge for incitement. You need a cause-consequence for that to happen... and that is where limits for radio people may come... if you start having way too many of those.

[Deja Q]

11. +1,000,000,000,080,000,666

[Swamp Rat]

10. Not me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I don't, for several reasons

You cannot predict the end

On a worst case scenario the millions of dead and injured... worst case

On a worst case scenario the massive damage to the national infrastructure.

Now you welcome it since you also hold a romantic view of war... and you think you can control the forces once fully unleashed.

Just an FYI... but a civil war means you skulking in the death of night and killing your neighbor, assuming you chose to join any of the active sides. It may also involved you being forced to bear arms for either side... or your kids... and I don't necessarily mean at age of majority either.

I know what I am looking at, as a cold analysis of the situation. that does not mean I welcome it. The conclusion scares me.

[cali]

21. I'm sorry. You don't offer any kind of analysis, merely

the same dire and tired prediction of imminent catastrophe that you've been making for years- and that you've been wrong about time after time.

And I also believe that some part of you finds the prospect of calamity writ large, thrilling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. From the posting guidelines

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

[cali]

30. there's nothing terribly civil about telling people that disagree with

you that they have their heads in the sand. What I've said is not attacking you. Now how about a substantive response to the points I made upthread.

[AuntPatsy]

44. I have personally heard people talking openly of using violence here in north east Texas...strange a...

as it may sound to you and just as impossible it may sound to you don't doubt for one moment that some people have been pushed so far off center using fear that to be honest I don't see how such if not curtailed and soon by the media, the very people inciting them with mind games it will take to push them over the edge..

It is hard to believe anyone could believe themselves capable of using violence ie guns etc on other americans that which of what would obviously be seen as criminal by our current system and believe themselves justified in any way but these are strange times...

Many people in this area are not in the best of shape and that alone, you would think, would dissuade such a suicidal event and possible jail time not exactly inviting...

But then again as I stated earlier today...common sense seems to have flown by the wayside for many that are now calling themselves tea baggers, patriots etc...

The rebel flag is being flown on the sides of the road, sides of houses,, used as window covering, small shanties salesman sitting smiling on the back of their old rusted two tone pickup trucks serving the needs of anyone wishing to fly one of their very own.....

Take into account this is a very populated area with a generous amount of all people...no one is batting an eyelash..not one...

Blacks are talked down to here....texas and northern lousiana..know for a fact this kind of behavior is not occurring so blatantly four hours either way, north south east and west and yet..no protest from those this behavior is obviously being directed at...

I was told when I made notice of the behaviors that the blacks here know there place...it was said out loud...and in hearing of a few...again...not an eyelash fluttering at the obvious back-wards mentality of days gone by...

wow. talk about the twilight zone...and though they appear somewhat intelligent..absolutely no common sense..none..it is very hard to explain what I have witnessed the past few weeks..but what I am witnessing is a bit out of the ordinary of everyday recent america and yet if it exists in this neck of the woods why not other ones similarly placed as in wide open spaces and heavy wooded areas..

Good place to set up meetings and the like without fear of discovery...again...racisim is not limited nor was it ever to this particular geographic area of this country...again...you could find similar in each and ever state of this union...

and the fear is real to them...the hate of Dem's and all things liberal even more real to those that have since been indoctrinated with the kind of talk that has been coming for quite some time from the likes of coulter, rushies etc, etc..even our last president proved to them in his own off handed way that blacks were per case new orleans not as important though I personally do not believe the last prez to have been prejudice to the extent these wing nuts are..though some would beg to differ I didn't see it..if anything he was prejudice to any that had less income that himself and those he calls close friends and or family members.....

again I have heard talk of civil war, heard those very words..strange as it may seem considering todays world I am beginning to think these people want to fight "The" civil war one more time and hope they can win where thier ancestors could not..

Does it make sense?

Not to you, not to me..but when the first one begins..

Both sides will become guility..to much anger on both sides though the ignorant hate filled in my mind is strictly coming from the one..you can only be pushed so far and many on this side are now itching to fight back...

strange times indeed..

Hope your sceptisism is well founded and Nadine's is just off the mark...

But who can say..the bubble in my view is about to burst wide open if not handled with more care than it has been...

[cali]

54. There's nothing new about this.

and historically we've seen it over and over again in American life. Glenn Beck isn't a new phenomenon. Yes, we're seeing lots of ugly. It's not unprecedented and it's silly to predict an imminent hot civil war based on it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Posting guidelines

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

[cali]

60. there was nothing remotely uncivil in that post, Nadine. Your spamming is highly uncivil

And my posts in this thread are no more uncivil than your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you has their head in the sand. Please stop spamming.

[AuntPatsy]

69. I disagree, what I have been seeing and hearing is definitely new, well not new historically but new...

for this day and age...and your right that beck is nothing new what is new about him is that he is obviously being pushed by the media to be the new rush....perhaps they felt rush did not do his job by ensuring the nuts came out of the woodwork,, and I guess in some ways they were correct because even with rush I have not in many years seen or heard the amount of racist and radical violent talk being spouted as what I am hearing recently....

So sorry if I do not agree that worrying about such is silly..perhaps for you..and last year I might have agreed with you but not now...come spend a week in north east texas and pretend you can sympathize with their cause...

as long as you look the part...meaning white bread you will be tentatively informed that civil war could very will be imminent and how unafraid they are since they have been expecting the start since the election tallies were totaled, they brag of being ready when the call comes..whoich they fully expect to happpen...

what is frightening to me is that though lacking if common sense..most of them are not ignorant..and most are family oriented.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Before the civil war the talk was similar

and if you can get it, read Hedge's War a Force that Gives us Meaning...

I read it after 9.11, based on his experience of years of reporting from many a war zone. It will explain it in ways that make it even more frightening

[armyowalgreens]

42. You should never welcome bloodshed.

It should be feared and hated.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Be careful what you wish for, the last Civil War with a total population of

approximately 30 million using 19th century weapons killed over 600,000 Americans.

Today with a population ten times times that amount and 21st century weapons, I suspect the casualties could well be in to the millions if not tens of millions.

People were cheering like hell just before that war as well, many of them literally believing it was going to be a picnic and a grand time to be had by all.

[kctim]

5. Excellent and well thought out post

and it is great to finally see someone who wishes to "discuss this seriously."

I think there are two logical questions that should be asked:
1. Why people fear the govt.?
2. Why, or how, is this any different than when clinton was President?

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Why the people fear the governemnt?

Some of it goes to the early days of the Republic... see the Whiskey Rebellion. Some may argue this is part of the US character, and some folks truly are into ... I am myself, I can make my decisions, leave me the fuck alone. We call them libertarians... and for the most part, as annoying as they can be, they will not take up arms.

But there is a significant number that fear the government since it will impose things, create society which means taking away their perceived freedoms and imposing on them a foreign system.

Right now the fear is that of the commie... fearing the Reds is a well trodden tactic, and it involves the foreign. Socialist is code for intellectual, foreign ideas and left... never mind the left in the US is not well organized... we have a left?

So it is a fear of the foreign. These days you have to add a good dose of the old time religion, which has been present since the beginning. But some folks do honestly fear the secular government which is ungodly.

And yes, it has increased since Clinton... in fact, that is when it started as a defined movement... granted the Birchers were there for a while but the birchers didn't organize militias. And today... the government is not just socialist, or red, but also run by a black man... in the utopia some of these people remember the country to be (never was), somebody like the President, and many members of Congress knew their place, and these changes are down right scary.

[kctim]

50. It is not wise to discount Libertarians

their firm belief in the Constitution may bleed into both major parties, but they are one of the largest 3rd parties out there and in the event of taking up arms like you spoke of, we both know they will choose to support the right because of their stances on individual rights.

I believe the fear of govt taking away freedoms is the main reason behind all of this and that each side fails to understand and respect the freedoms the other holds dear. The fact that neither side wishes to understand and respect the otherside is why we are at this point.

Most people on the right don't have a clue as to what socialism is. In todays political climate, socialist is code for nothing more than wanting to take money from one and give it to another, which is then in turn compared to foreign nations who practice it.

As an atheist, I could not even begin to understand how some people could fear a secular govt., but I do see and accept your point. Something interesting to further think about.

The militia movement grew 10+ fold under clinton and was still not a significant movement worthy of serious consideration. The JBS was pretty fringe also, as are the racists. There is NOTHING we can do to understand work with such people and I believe if we are really going to get serious and discuss as you mentioned, we need stop lumping everybody who disagree's in with them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Oh I don't discount libertarians, they range from far left to far right

and in a shooting war I don't think they will automatically choose the right. The reason for that... the last eight years. And if there is something libertarians remember are breaches to the Constitution.

Now I am keeping an eye on three things:

The Militia movement which continues to grow... those would be your trained foot soldiers.

The Tenth Amendment movement... which is getting very scary.

And of course theocracy watch.

As to fear... of taking liberties away... yes I will make a broad brush... but in general I think the right would do it faster to preserve the way of life, than the mythical left... (we don't have one)... but that is just my view... and yes I know the left can be really authoritarian too, but for that to happen you need organization and power. Neither really exists for a true left in the US.

That said, we do have plenty of projection too... on all sides...

Now I have tried to talk to local RWers looking for a common ground... but at times I fear we crossed that bridge a while ago...

It is to the point that you mention any politics and people just walk out. That is not a good thing.

[AuntPatsy]

73. You state that the libertarians will support the right because of individual rights

being paramount? If that was truly the case than they could not in all good conscience ever align themselves with the right because time after time in the past as many years as they have held office they have proven they do not care about individual rights....

Their stance toward controlling others bodies and or desires and or dislikes etc are very will known...so if you ask me..the only other reason they would align with the right is simply because the core of them are prejudice and Dem's mean people of color..

sad

[kctim]

74. No, I state they will support the right because of individual rights

because I actually know Libertarians and speak with them, instead of just guessing at what they think, as you seem to have done. Abortion rights and gay marriage rights don't even compare to things they really worry about, like taxes and over regulation, you know, stuff they believe the govt forces onto people.

And yes, when all else fails, label all who dare to think differently as racists. YAWN!

[LuvNewcastle]

7. We haven't had anything yet

that would compare to the events leading up to the Civil War -- Nat Turner's Rebellion, the raid on Harper's Ferry, Bleeding Kansas. And I don't see a significant amount of the population ready to go to war over a health care bill. I think we'll have more violence as we've already had, but I think it will be able to be handled by the police and the FBI. I don't think the military will need to be involved.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. It is not over a health care bill

and you are right, we have not yet seen Nat Turner... you expect history to repeat itself that way?

What we have seen though is increasing violence. As the cycle continues and increases...

Now what we have seen are the Tenth Amendment fans. Care to tell me when was the last time the equivalent was done in the US, and chiefly who was the main proponent of this?

I'll save you the research... States Rights were over Slavery and the main proponent of it, or the loudest was John Calhoun. Governor Perry is playing with the SAME kind of fire.

Oh and civil wars are not done by majorities, nor started by majorities... they are done by minorities who have nothing else to lose.

[LuvNewcastle]

36. Gov. Perry cannot be compared to

John C. Calhoun. Wrongheaded as he was, Calhoun was one of the most gifted orators in American history. Perry is just a buffoon, and just about everybody knows that. I don't expect to see history repeat itself exactly as it was before the Civil War, but I do expect there to be a compelling issue (like slavery) to start another war and so far, I'm not seeing it. You're right about minorities starting civil wars, but their numbers must be significant enough to really cause trouble and I don't think they have the numbers, at least not enough who are willing to fight a war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. It is the whole tenth ammedment movement

and granted Perry is a bofun, but we are seeing trends. That is the point... as to the cause compelling... the pattern and it is already thirty years ongoing is over woman's rights... the culture wars provide a view of what is driving these people.

Abortion is wrong... and women should be kept away from the working place... they believe this and they believe it is their religious duty to turn this around.

There is an economic component as well as a racial one.

Now the question is do they have the numbers to at least, worst case, declare independence in an area, and hold it?

Part of the movement also includes moving en mass to a state or two. I think they realize that problem. Coincidentally those states have mountains.

[el_bryanto]

12. Well I was going to say . . . but then I saw your bit about the posting rules and thought better.

Thank goodness you said that.

But this seems fanciful.

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I wish it was, and the posting rules are there for a reason

:-)

[Echo In Light]

13. Once you resort to violence, the police state has you where they can deal with you

... in the way IT prefers to deal with those who oppose its aims.

[Taverner]

17. Don't resort to violence, unless you plan on killing everybody

And that's a sick joke - - please don't hate on me

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Yeah but the police state does not win every time

remember that.

[Joanne98]

18. You're right. What to do? I don't know.

[cali]

22. lol she's right? predicting the future erroneously is something

she's done repeatedly. I wouldn't bet on her being right this time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. From the posting guidelines

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. At this point to me... find who's who in the zoo

and try to create local communities.

If this happens, we will need them

Oh and creating communities and reaching across could help to stop this...

[leveymg]

28. Dear Nadine - Civil insurrection and political violence in the US is periodic and normal.

It's usually been at the fringes, against minorities, or carried out among elite factions. The 1960s were full of all types. So were the 1930s, and the 1880s. The Civil War was really the culmination of intense hatreds and regional rivalries going back to the Abolition Movement that got its start in the 1830s and had its roots before the War for Independence.

What's new is that the U.S. is no longer a self-contained political unit. If there is a profit still to be made here from violence, you can bet various global banking groups will be financing various sides.

Being normal doesn't make it good or acceptable, just likely to happen again in our lifetimes. Peace.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I know, hell in the seventies it was the Left doing this

weather underground kiddies.

And the question is how we make it NON acceptable?

[deaniac21]

37. Unquestionably, posting on DU.

[leveymg]

38. '70s Left-wing violence was a lagging indicator politically.

The Weather Underground and SLA and such emerged in a post-politics and para-politics of the second Nixon Administration. After '72, everyone else in the movement was exhausted, coopted, or had turned to something more constructive to do. Not just in America - See Fassbinder's "Germany in Autumn". Right now, I'd say the dyanamic is a bit different. It's the winners of the political process who are now de-energized, us, while the marginalized Right-wing base is in the streets and building bombs.

Hopefully, the FBI is using that great big open microphone and eye in the sky Bush gave them to actually protect us from them this time. Building bombs will always be NON acceptable, unless you do it with a $10 billion DoD contract.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You are right by the way

the dynamic is very different. It is more like it was with Clinton... but ten times as bad

[leveymg]

46. I get what you're saying.

But, the hatred of Clinton was more socially acceptable, particularly in the military, and the Right still believed themselves to be in charge.

Right now, the Right is totally in the wilderness. That's what makes them a danger as a terrorist breeding ground. Think of OK City as the template, not 9/11 or anything the Weathermen did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Here is my template for how I envision this to possibly happen

1.- We will start seeing bank robberies (to fund this), as well as roadside bombs targeting specific people and lone wolf attacks against specific people. The bank robberies are the only thing similar to the SLA... mostly you need to fund it. They may even get into selling drugs and running drugs.

2.- Higher states, bombings of buildings... federal preferably but state will do in a pinch.

Now as things escalate, and this requires a lot of things to come together....

3.- A state or two declare themselves as independent regions, and not accepting Federal Mandates under the 10th amendment, see recent pawlenty statement.

And it goes from there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. Excellent point.

Sadly, true.

I must say that the level of invective and the polarization is something I have not seen for 40 years.
The chronic underlying threat of violence is more intense than anything I remember from the 60's/70's.


edit for spelling.

[derby378]

33. Sam Kinison painted a devastating portrait of the average Iraqi soldier

Saddam's Finest, in Kinison's eyes, wore one shoe and a T-shirt that said "I Just Want To Eat" while waving his rifle over his head and uttering a chant that translated into English as "I'll trade you this gun for a sandwich."

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. For real some of those troops

surrendered to a Drone the first time around. You think they will after Abu Ghraib?

[derby378]

39. Didn't some of them surrender to a reporter armed only with his videocamera?

Seems like I remember that actually happened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Yeah that actually happened to

a reporter from CBS if I remember correctly

[Odin2005]

49. A relevant thread from another message board:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4215

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. You know I have to finish reading that book...

I started it well back in the day... perhaps reach for it today and start again.

So many books, so little time.

One I ordered yesterday was the Nine Nations of North America... mostly to read for source material

[Odin2005]

57. The 4th Turning is a very good book.

The authors are (or were, in the case of Bill Strauss, who died of cancer about a year ago) a bit socially conservative for my taste and use the Greatest Generation too much as a model for what us Millennials will look like, which I think is a bad idea because there are longer cycles at work IMO, Many posters on that website have suggested a similarity between this crisis and the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, witch trials included (If he floats he took a bonus!...). But it is a very good book in any case. Their 2005 date for the start of the Crisis was right on the mark, Katrina.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I need to finish it

and how serious am I? I even downloaded the Kindle version... that say if I get stuck somewhere I can read it... no need to carry the paper one

LOL

[Odin2005]

63. Some further observations:

The Glorious Revolution, which is what this Crisis may be similar too, was about the de-legitimization for the Absolute Monarchy idea of government forged in the Crisis era of the late 1400s, which was equivalent to the American Civil War and the unification of Germany and Italy into industrial nation-states based of a industrial corporate elite. Thus this Crisis is about the de-legitimization of Corporatism.

The modern American Left and Right are the direct descendants of the Puritan Roundheads and Royalist Cavaliers, respectively, that's why the North-East is Liberal and the South-East is Conservative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. And war is in the future....

yes, started re-readying it. There is a reason why Toynbee is popular with liberal historians and not with the conservative ones...

:-)

Also China's rise is almost predictable...

Ah fin d' ciecle...

[Odin2005]

66. Toynbee is a fun read.

This "time of troubles"? Not so much fun... :yoiks:

The Conservatives read Oswald Spengler. :banghead:

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Well you could always sprinkle your readying with some of

our famous British Marxist historians...

:-)

I must say, them, Derrida and some strong whiskey.

[Odin2005]

68. Bah, nobody understands Derrida!

They only Think they understand Derrida! :rofl: :)

As for Marxist Historians, Eric Hobswam's books (like Age of Extremes) are good reads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. They are... and Hobsbawm is a great writer

but still...

Hey quite frankly this is just fun.

[Ozymanithrax]

55. Welcome a Civil War?

I guess that means those of you who welcome it are ready to go across the street in the dead of night into that "Conservative" household and put bullets through the heads of adults and children. Got to keep them from doing that to you, right?

That is civil war.

That business down the street with the "T-baggers Welcome Here" sign (There are several in this town) has to go. Line them up, burn their business, burn houses, kill them, and their little dogs to.

And one other thing to welcome in a Civil War. Rape! The surest way to terrorize a local population into following the correct ideology is kill the men and rape the women. That is Civil War. That is war.

Elsewhere they call it ethnic cleansing, but here it would be ideological purification. There will be ethnic cleansing in many areas, too. In modern times that is the first thing to happen. Because there are no neat battle lines, people are driven to neaten them, new nations are defined by territory controlled. Any of you who Welcome Civil War should move to an area that is predominantly left. There are fewer of the other persuasion to murder in their sleep. Fewer of them to kill you first.

And don't think anyone can be neutral. The mindset in a civil war is "If you are not with us you are against us." Set on the fence and you get shot off the fence.

I don't welcome civil war. I don't have any illusions as to what it means.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. People who have romantic ideas do welcome it

we know what it means...

This was just some cold analysis and definitions.

I could have used the more stringent one... 1000 casualties per side\ per year of conflict... but hey that leaves some, like the Troubles, that were civil wars, out.

[Ozymanithrax]

59. Once the shooting starts...

a civil war defines itself.

A low level civil war can last a long time because peple come to tolerate the the death and local economies can continue almost untouched.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Yeah and a low level one is exactly what I think we will see in the US

for the moment, and for many complex reasons...

Would it remain low level? Only time will tell.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Kick for the night crowd

Oh and Odin readying book, I knew we were moving towards crisis but this will make me REREAD toynbee, among others...