Hacker Network Anonymous Issues Call To Arms (Revolution Calling)

Windflier, this is a conversation. We can respond to each other saying the same thing over and over, or we can expand our thoughts to explain more fully what’s on our mind.

You have chosen to look at my comments as trying to avoid my initial statements. I’m not avoiding my initial statements.

In this post, I raised an issue that is important in that it addresses the big-mouth mentality that dismisses the obvious to call others cowards or some such.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3108760/posts?page=91#91

Before the civil war, many in the South thought it was going to be a cake-walk taking on the North. It wasn’t. That’s how wars go. They are seldom as easy as they seem to be before the fact.

You have convinced yourself that all maladies can be remedied under a general revolt in the U. S. I’m not convinced.

There are so many issues that undercut your position, that it’s a pain in the ass to mention them over and over.

When I responded with the above post, you declared the issue to be non-valid, and tried to move the discussion back to ground we had already covered. If you’re having a hard time grasping how this conversation progressed, go back and read it again.

I’m not going to continue saying the same things over and over. And if it bothers you to have to address associated issues related to flapping your gums before you’ve fully thought things out, then you picked the wrong guy to discuss this matter with.

You have chosen to look at my comments as trying to avoid my initial statements. I’m not avoiding my initial statements.

Sure you are. You've come back with a slew of catty comments, but you haven't taken two minutes to explain your position at all.

When I responded with the above post, you declared the issue to be non-valid, and tried to move the discussion back to ground we had already covered.

Not so, D.O. All I've done throughout this exchange is attempt to get you to back up your initial assertions with a real argument as to why those assertions are valid. We haven't "covered" any ground at all, since you won't make a rational argument. So far, you've failed to do anything but insist that your assertions are correct.

That's not much of a conversation, my friend.

I provided a logic based argument that countered your assertions. You haven't reciprocated. It's as simple as that, despite your fusillade of word bombs.

And thank you, but I'm not going down a rabbit hole of links to study your position elsewhere. You could have saved us both a lot of time by just hammering out a few dozen words to back up what you asserted at post number 3.

I agree with you that wars are never as straight forward as the aggressors or the defenders would like, but that proves nothing in regard to the potential outcome of a citizen uprising in this country.

I am sure wikileaks will start unloading stuff any day now from Snowden...my guess is they are going to pull some serious crap in Rio when the world cup begins too.

You have chosen to look at my comments as trying to avoid my initial statements. I’m not avoiding my initial statements.

Sure you are. You've come back with a slew of catty comments, but you haven't taken two minutes to explain your position at all.

I have addressed alternative views each step of the way here. If you can't grasp that. That's not my problem.

You stated that 15,000 insurgents tied our troops down. LOL, I don't recall our troops being tied down. To have our troops tied down, the insurgents would have to go head to head. They didn't.

You mentioned AK-47s and IEDs. Where did they use those AK-47s and IEDs? The AK-47s were mostly used against Iraqis who wouldn't play along with the insurgents.. Once in a while a direct fire-fight would ensue, but that didn't last long. The insurgents couldn't sustain that type of confrontation. The IEDs were used in market places and on highways.

This is what you suggest is a model for what we should do evidently. IEDs on our highways would certainly be a plus. Resident populations couldn't travel any longer. My, that's a great improvement.

Our resident insurgents wouldn't be able to go head to head. The military would call in strikes and that would be the end of that.

What you're left with is a situation where you can't go directly against the military. I take it you don't want to blow up stores, restaurants, movie theaters, highways, or gas stations. Okay, what then? We can't take on the antics of the terrorists in Iraq. That severely limits how you can fight an insurgent campaign. Unless you want to be less popular than the government in less than ten minutes, you can't adopt these tactics.

That means you have next to nothing going for you.

In short order you'll have nothing but remnants of armaments. The government will have the laterst in armaments.

You won't have communicatons. You won't have the right of free passage. You won't be able to resupply. It's comical to read your statements, and realize you actually think you're on to something big.

When I responded with the above post, you declared the issue to be non-valid, and tried to move the discussion back to ground we had already covered.

Not so, D.O. All I've done throughout this exchange is attempt to get you to back up your initial assertions with a real argument as to why those assertions are valid.

I don't have to give you any real arguments. You have expressed your opinion, and I have explained that I don't think you're firing on all cylinders. We are expressing our thoughts. And as you make responses, I respond to them as best I can on the merrits.

You blather on about how successful you'll be, and I mention that people most often feel that way going into war. Then war comes and along with it comes the negatives that wars always bring. Then all of a sudden, it's not germane to talk about the issue of hindsight as compared to foresight. You dismiss my rejoinders as if they didn't address the real issues. They most certainly did.

We haven't "covered" any ground at all, since you won't make a rational argument. So far, you've failed to do anything but insist that your assertions are correct.

Let me replay one section of this conversation:

you 32 There isn't a military force on the planet that can conquer a home grown force that large and so determined.

me 91 No man volunteers for a battle he thinks he cannot win. And yet, people lose in war all the time.

you 98 And that is why you promote defeatism and pre-emptive surrender. You don't believe in yourself or your fellow Americans, even though facts, logic, and reason dictate that you should.

me 110 The point was, many a man talks about victory and the righteousness of the cause, prior to destroying himself and those he loves along with him.

you 112 No, the point is, when the pedal hits the metal, there are those who are willing to confront what must be confronted, and those who are not.

me 113 You get to make the point you want. You can’t make my point. If you wish to ignore my point, fine. Don’t tell me what my point was.

you 116 Oh? I read plain English just fine, and your comment left no question as to what your point was. You said what you said. Don't be mad with me because you own it.

me 119 For a guy who says he reads English just fine, you sure don’t evidence it with your responses. You told me what my point was, and you were wrong.

That's not much of a conversation, my friend.

LOL

The exchange shown here started off by you declaring what your numbers would be, and that there was no way you could lose with those numbers. It's all pie in the sky stuff, but I didn't challenge you directly.

I reminded you that a lot of people support war thinking all will be bliss once they've won. And of course, the victory is assured. You declared it above in your response 32.

You tried to change the point to suit your point of view, but the point was mine to make. If you wanted to make a point of your own, do it. Disagree with mine directly and make one of your own. Don't tell me what my point is, as you attempted to do in 112.

"No, the point is..." Nope. My point stands.

Now, to your point. The point is, loud mouths frequently insite folks to enter into insurgencies. They use righteous talk of high minded things, and oh it all sounds so great. We had one civil war, and at the beginning of it, there were folks who did just what you're doing now. And then brother fought against brother, whole familes were destroyed, whole cities were destroyed. Both sides suffered major losses.

I am reminded that there were good men in the South who advocated not to go to war. How did you address such things? "The point is, when the pedal hits the metal, there are those who are willing to confront what must be confronted, and those who are not." Not only did the South not prevail, all losses on both sides were suffered in a cause the South did not win. The North's position prevailed. The South was ravaged, and for what? And that's a very important point. It was aluded to in my response, which you not only ignored, but also tried to invalidate.

When it comes to States' Rights, I am sympathetic to the South's cause. Am I happy the South waged the war with the North and was devistated by it? No. I'm not. This is not to imply the South started it either.

I provided a logic based argument that countered your assertions. You haven't reciprocated. It's as simple as that, despite your fusillade of word bombs.

LOL

And thank you, but I'm not going down a rabbit hole of links to study your position elsewhere. You could have saved us both a lot of time by just hammering out a few dozen words to back up what you asserted at post number 3.

Look tiger, you've made a number of assertions here too. There's no real way to say what would happen if an insurgency surfaced in the United States. You could have saved us both a bunch of time if you had admitted that there's no way of knowing if your insurgency would prevail or not. There's no imperical evidence that it would prevail. You take a guess, and that's about all it's worth..

I agree with you that wars are never as straight forward as the aggressors or the defenders would like, but that proves nothing in regarhed to the potential outcome of a citizen uprising in this country.

Please take a long hard look at insurgencies in other nations. Perhaps high minded people start them, but the rank and file die. The nations are ravaged by the events. Cities are turned to war zones. Think of our largest cities reduced to rubble, just to make things better. Some folks think they'll fight the battle by Hoyle. They don't realize the other side has a lot to gain by doing things in the name of the righteous group. War is hell. It is not a short leap to a better situation in most instances.

You can infer I'm a coward, or unwilling to stand up for what is right. I'm willing to accept that. I am not willing to watch my nation turned into Kosovo, Beirut, or some other hell hole.

NEVER do these things end quickly. Peaceful areas are turned into combat zones. Restrictions come into play. Decades can go by while our nation is humliated internationally, and our impact simply ceases to exist. Other nations step in. The American century is over.

Swell...

If we cannot make the case at the ballot box, then we don't deserve to prevail. If our cause is not just enough for other fair minded individuals to buy into it, then war to force it on them is futal.

For a guy who says he reads English just fine, you sure don’t evidence it with your responses. You told me what my point was, and you were wrong. Own that ding-bat.

Now you're just bundling words together and throwing them at me to try to make me stop.

No, I made a apoint and you sought to deny the point and change it. You can disagree with my point. You can make your point. You can't tell me my point is not valid.

I do have to admit to feeling a tinge of sympathy for you here... well, not really. LMAO

Bundling words? Yes, some folks actually call them sentences and paragraphs. You can reference them any way you like. Then I and others are free to find the humor in it.

You're not even trying to defend your point any longer.

I made my statement. I didn't take it back. You made your statement. You didn't take it back. So which one of us has stopped believing in what we have previously stated? (Insert Jeopardy music here...)

For the record, this was where you first stated your point of view on the thread. It was at post # 3:

If folks think the government isn’t itching to declare martial law, I don’t they’re paying close attention.

Anything comes even close to looking like an insurrection will give the government the motive to do just about any damned thing it wants to.

Sure, talk of inequities all sounds great. Yep, we have justifiable grievances. Nope, we’re not going to prevail against a government that would just as soon shoot you as talk to you.

I've said throughout this exchange that you're selling the surrender viewpoint here, and that you're attempting to convince others that any attempt to resist a police action by government would be futile.

You can say whatever you like. I don't mind. It doesn't make it true. You sound like a middle-school mental midget.

You would have us believe that anyone who urges caution going into a civil war situation, has to be a very weak minded person. I'm not buying into that. I don't think everyone else is either.

This is not an issue of simple right or wrong. There are hundreds if not thousands of things to be considered here.

Of one thing I am sure. You have had the opportunity to review what took place during our Civil War, have had the opportunity to think about what happens in other nations to individuals, families, communities, towns, capitals..., and this causes you no second thoughts at all. If you have expressed concern here, I missed it. Parhaps you'd like to link me to it, in order to correct me.

It's true. Your statements on this thread and elsewhere prove it.

They prove that I caution folks not to buy into a Civil War lightly. Thank heaven for that!

I contend that the American people could successfully defend themselves against such a military campaign, and in fact, could drive the aggressor force to cease all hostilities. My second reply to you on the thread laid out the facts, logic, and reasoning to support that contention. So far, you've done nothing to counter any of those arguments.

Talk about blather...

So the ball is still in your court. State the underlying facts, logic, and reason to support your point, or concede.

No, the ball is in your court. Tell us how much better we'll be one year from today if a Civil War breaks out in our nation.

Be sure to mention how many dead Americans there will be. Be sure to tell us all the down-side, as you celebrate the brave new future.

Your mouth is cashing checks other people's families, communties, towns, states, standards of living, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives will have to pay for.

You can infer I'm a coward, or unwilling to stand up for what is right. I'm willing to accept that. I am not willing to watch my nation turned into Kosovo, Beirut, or some other hell hole.

You've read something into my earlier statements that I never inferred. I've never imagined or suggested a scenario in which the citizens would mount a campaign of aggression against the federal government. Not even close.

My position has always been, that if the government were to try to use military force against several states that were determined to peacefully separate themselves from the union, that they'd be biting off more than they can chew.

I've maintained from the beginning that it's not feasible to militarily subdue a population with as high a rate of gun ownership as we have in this country. Most especially in those states which would be most likely to take that path.

I've said that, based upon historical precedent, that at least 10% of able bodied gun owners in the secessionist states would physically resist any effort by the federal government to squelch a purely political realignment through sheer force. It could be much higher.

Because there would be no federal government and no standing military to speak of (besides National Guard units) in these secessionist states, the rest of the country would be looking at the untenable prospect of using the most powerful military force on earth against lightly armed civilians. And not just any civilians -- Americans -- many of them in political sympathy with the blue states.

It's unrealistic in this day and time to believe that the federal government would find the political will (or cover) to mount a campaign of military aggression against a collection of states who simply chose to bow out of political union with the rest.

But let's say that they did. Let's imagine for a moment that they found (or created) just the sort of 'false flag' incident that would give them cover to launch some sort of military show of force. To compel several secessionist states to come back into the fold through force, such a show would have to be orders of magnitude larger than the Waco incident.

Now what sort of response do you think that would create on the part of the civilian population on both sides? How do you think blue state Americans would feel, watching federal troops blowing up schools, Safeways, and shopping malls? What would they think, seeing images of American women and children bloodied and made homeless by such violence?

Do you think they'd feel some sort of pride in watching their government smashing their neighbors' political will through brute force, mass destruction, and death?

I think not.

I also think that such scenarios have been war gamed many times by our military, and that those planners have concluded that such an exercise would be fruitless. In fact, bringing force into such a situation would do nothing but harden the resolve of those who you're attempting to control, and would likely result in a stalemate at best. It could also escalate into a bloodbath unseen in modern times, which could consume the entire country. Don't think that military planners haven't already thought all this through.

Back to the top...

After reading your last two posts to me, it appears that you're arguing against an armed revolt against the federal government. Again, I've never advocated such a thing, and haven't spent much time imagining how such a scenario might play out. That would be a topic for another day.

I had some other things going on over the last few days, and didn't have the time or the mindset to address this post until now. Sorry for the delay.

You can infer I'm a coward, or unwilling to stand up for what is right. I'm willing to accept that. I am not willing to watch my nation turned into Kosovo, Beirut, or some other hell hole.

You've read something into my earlier statements that I never inferred. I've never imagined or suggested a scenario in which the citizens would mount a campaign of aggression against the federal government. Not even close.

Okay, that may be true. When you used some examples of what 15,000 terrorists in Iraq could accomplish, it did give me pause to think you were envisioning something of a 'peoples revolt'. If that's wrong then I appreciate the mention.

My position has always been, that if the government were to try to use military force against several states that were determined to peacefully separate themselves from the union, that they'd be biting off more than they can chew.

As long as those states held an election, or at the least had their elected officials come to a determination to separate, I could see your scenario playing out a lot more like you have laid it out. I will say, this sort of thing should be have to stand a popular vote, but in some states I'm not sure that would be a wise idea either. You get one of your Leftist states wanting to leave the union, and even the most righteous governance could cause them to separate.

I've maintained from the beginning that it's not feasible to militarily subdue a population with as high a rate of gun ownership as we have in this country. Most especially in those states which would be most likely to take that path.

Gun ownership, even of the highest types of military style rifles would be no guarantee of the right side prevailing. To prevail you have to stand up to an organized military operation with it's command and control aspects working as they have. A state leaving the union might have some highly trained people participating, but it's not the same thing. It would not have the command and control logistics set up, tested, and firing on all cylinders. You could be right, but I do have serious misgivings.

I've said that, based upon historical precedent, that at least 10% of able bodied gun owners in the secessionist states would physically resist any effort by the federal government to squelch a purely political realignment through sheer force. It could be much higher.

If this were to occur after a popular vote, you could be correct. "Could be." You'd certainly get some loyalist eager beavers, but I don't know how deep the ranks go on that alone. It's my take that certainly Texas and California should be able to leave the union, since they were first Republics on their own before joining the Union. Texas for a longer period than California. I believe Texas was a Republic for months, while California was only a Republic for around 24 hours.

Because there would be no federal government and no standing military to speak of (besides National Guard units) in these secessionist states, the rest of the country would be looking at the untenable prospect of using the most powerful military force on earth against lightly armed civilians. And not just any civilians -- Americans -- many of them in political sympathy with the blue states.

Okay, I hear you. I'm just not sure how much that buys you. How many states do join in? Do they wind up contiguous?

It's unrealistic in this day and time to believe that the federal government would find the political will (or cover) to mount a campaign of military aggression against a collection of states who simply chose to bow out of political union with the rest.

While I can see the possibility of this, I"m still not convinced that the Federal government just says, "Okay, well good-bye then.", when states break away. In an Obama administration, it would be all out war. And it's my take that a guy would have to be about as bad as him to move states to do it. The scenario would seem to almost have to involve a Leftist head of government vs a Right wing break away state.

But let's say that they did. Let's imagine for a moment that they found (or created) just the sort of 'false flag' incident that would give them cover to launch some sort of military show of force. To compel several secessionist states to come back into the fold through force, such a show would have to be orders of magnitude larger than the Waco incident.

Yes, we're not talking the same type of operation. It would have to be a broad military operation. Waco was merely a local (although the feds were involved) police operation. Perhaps 'isolated' is a better term than 'local'.

Now what sort of response do you think that would create on the part of the civilian population on both sides? How do you think blue state Americans would feel, watching federal troops blowing up schools, Safeways, and shopping malls? What would they think, seeing images of American women and children bloodied and made homeless by such violence?

It really depends. How would you see it if an avowed Marxist state decided to leave the union? Would you feel pangs of grief seeing those who hated our Constitution and Founding Father's norms get taken to the woodshed in the above manner? I've got to tell you, I'd be rather angry at them for trying to destroy our unified nation based on Marxist philosophy.

The media would be key. The causal events would be key. Even a good cause with an idiot for a leader could cause problems. Damn if I'd want to see a George Bush leading a break-away. A Ronald Reagan explaining it, okay. A guy that couldn't convince people water was wet, no..

Do you think they'd feel some sort of pride in watching their government smashing their neighbors' political will through brute force, mass destruction, and death?

I think not.

And I suspect you would be right "IF" those breaking away could make a good case that they merely wanted to follow our Founder's and Constitutional principles. I don't think the rest of the populace would be sold on the idea that Marxists were justified in trying to break the cohesion of our union.

I also think that such scenarios have been war gamed many times by our military, and that those planners have concluded that such an exercise would be fruitless. In fact, bringing force into such a situation would do nothing but harden the resolve of those who you're attempting to control, and would likely result in a stalemate at best. It could also escalate into a bloodbath unseen in modern times, which could consume the entire country. Don't think that military planners haven't already thought all this through.

I don't. I do have to tell you though that I don't think avoidance is what military planners think of in this eventuality. It would be my take that the planning would center around putting down a rebellion in the most rapid and effective manner.

We both could make a case for the military needing to stand down, but I don't think that would be the case. The military serves the United States. Break away states would garner no loyalty from the military of the U. S. If you wish to object, it's a valid point of view. I'm just not sold on you being correct if you do. Is it possible? I suppose. Would military leaders who refused to follow orders to take action remain in their posts? No. New officers would be appointed. Desired action would follow..

Back to the top...

After reading your last two posts to me, it appears that you're arguing against an armed revolt against the federal government. Again, I've never advocated such a thing, and haven't spent much time imagining how such a scenario might play out. That would be a topic for another day.

Okay, well your comments here are the closest we have come to having opinions close enough that would debate the issues.

There could come a time when we would be faced with such a situation. Some states are going to have to make a determination on these matters in the next few years, because changing population demographics will make it next to impossible for a state to make a unified decision to break away. Texas' population is going to change a great deal over the next five to twenty years. As it does, you have more and more people who may wish to defeat such a break-away movement.

While I can see the possibility of this, I"m still not convinced that the Federal government just says, "Okay, well good-bye then.", when states break away. In an Obama administration, it would be all out war.

******************************

Agreed. Thousands of people would die in battle, the economy would fail, and many more thousands of civilians would die due to lack of medical supplies alone. It would be a disaster that would make the civil war look like a mere skirmish.

I suspect the problems at home would also cause the United States to be written off internationally as a world player, even if we did make a pretense of trying to remain committed to being one.