Conjecture Zone: Future American Revolution Against the US

[GreecePwns]

Woodruff, do you agree with Saxi's "3 soldiers to 1 police officer" assertion?

Anyway, I don't see an uprising starting with the NYPD. It depends on the catastrophic event that causes such an uprising. Most likely it will be the next major economic meltdown. I'm willing to guess it'll be one that reaches near Depression levels and is responded to with more favors for the few at the expense of the many.*

A revolution sparked by such an event will be first organized peacefully like the Occupy movement. Of course the riot police will be sent in to fight the crowds, but if unemployment is at something like 20 percent instead of 9, the numbers willing to fight back will be significantly higher and the black blocs will begin to gather in major cities.

When riot police ramps up its violence even more than it has against the Occupy movement, then sympathy will only grow for the protesting side.

I can only see armed revolution beginning with a single military base going rogue and seizing its weapons. A single victory will likely lead to more such events occurring. Only after the government responds with imposing martial law will the police join the side of the rebellion.

*I don't really see any other event causing an American revolution. The only other thing that really got Americans angry in the last half-century were race related issues and wars, and neither has the same potential to cause a revolution in America as economic and political inequality.

[Phatscotty]

@The Phatsco-Lootifer-saxi triangle:


Uh, guys, revolution ITT involves a political change with a good helping of blood and bullets. Ron Paul is not a revolution, although it's advertised as such--like Pantene Revolution and whatever it is that you young kids drink these days.

For the last time, I only mentioned Ron Paul's nomination at the Convention as a symbol. Our mission statement was this "When the time comes you see Ron Paul is up for nomination and legislation is passed to audit the Fed (many laughs were heard as this was imagined as impossible at the time), that is when we initiate our part of our plan, "setting up our own domino".

BBS, you asked about what event might be the spark for shit to start popping off for realz. I answered that the nomination and the legislation are 2 parts that have been set in place, and when our 3rd part is set into place, then we will be ready for that "event". I suppose this will all make sense better after the event happens on or around August 5th. That event is the beginning of the end stage of the death of the US dollar. I was sure that if anyone was able to read between the lines, it would be you and Saxi. I apologize I am unable to speak specifically under threat of "punishment" but I am allowed to show our tools.

The full context and meaning of our Revolution.


Do not look for my return in this thread until I notice someone with the eyes to see, or until after the flame becomes a fire.

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff, do you agree with Saxi's "3 soldiers to 1 police officer" assertion?

Anyway, I don't see an uprising starting with the NYPD. It depends on the catastrophic event that causes such an uprising. Most likely it will be the next major economic meltdown. I'm willing to guess it'll be one that reaches near Depression levels and is responded to with more favors for the few at the expense of the many.*

A revolution sparked by such an event will be first organized peacefully like the Occupy movement. Of course the riot police will be sent in to fight the crowds, but if unemployment is at something like 20 percent instead of 9, the numbers willing to fight back will be significantly higher and the black blocs will begin to gather in major cities.

When riot police ramps up its violence even more than it has against the Occupy movement, then sympathy will only grow for the protesting side.

I can only see armed revolution beginning with a single military base going rogue and seizing its weapons. A single victory will likely lead to more such events occurring. Only after the government responds with imposing martial law will the police join the side of the rebellion.

*I don't really see any other event causing an American revolution. The only other thing that really got Americans angry in the last half-century were race related issues and wars, and neither has the same potential to cause a revolution in America as economic and political inequality.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a police strike is likely, just using it as an example that a weak vs. strong revolt could be a fast success if even a minority of the public forces were neutralized. (another example would be the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison during the Russian Revolution)

[Haggis_McMutton]

Don't worry gang, I've got access to several computing clusters at my university and they have all been employed to crack this cuning, top-secret scotty code.

ATM I'm getting about 2 years average CPU time per 24 hours. We'll have this code cracked with enough time to spare for whatever precausions are neccessary before the momentuous 5th of August event.

Btw. sorry for any speling mistakes. I've had to disable all spelcheckers so those resources might be used in the hunt for the code!

[GBU56]

I thought he was talking about armed revolution were you shoot the government and all their evil lackys?

Voting for some chump in the light of an economic crisis because he speaks a modicum of sense is about as revolutionary as wearing a tie on casual friday.

He asked about what events would set it off. Between the lines, my posts says the event is a US currency crisis.

Let me remind you, we are experiencing peaceful revolution. It seems like you keep on saying violence is the only way revolution can happen. Is that correct?

The point of the post has nothing to do with voting. Refer to the first line of the post, as I mention they are just pieces that are in place, as related to OP's #2 question. Maybe you can read it again, and the video has a lot of information that mentions nothing about voting or elections. In fact, I'm not sure anybody said anything about voting for anybody.

He asked about what events would set it off. Between the lines, my posts says the event is a US currency crisis.


There's no currency crisis in America. Our American dollar is rising in value as we speak, hurting American exporters. It was the rightwing ideology that caused our credit-worthiness to sink a bit 2 years ago, cause of the RNC willingness to destroy our economy to unseat the Democrats and President Obama. The world still thinks that America is the safest place place to park their wealth in.

Ron Paul is a moron and his son is too. Ron Paul will never become a serious contender in the Republican Party, cause he's a Libertarian. Being a Libertarian is opposite of the ideals of the social conservatives.

[Phatscotty]

I thought he was talking about armed revolution were you shoot the government and all their evil lackys?

Voting for some chump in the light of an economic crisis because he speaks a modicum of sense is about as revolutionary as wearing a tie on casual friday.

He asked about what events would set it off. Between the lines, my posts says the event is a US currency crisis.

Let me remind you, we are experiencing peaceful revolution. It seems like you keep on saying violence is the only way revolution can happen. Is that correct?

The point of the post has nothing to do with voting. Refer to the first line of the post, as I mention they are just pieces that are in place, as related to OP's #2 question. Maybe you can read it again, and the video has a lot of information that mentions nothing about voting or elections. In fact, I'm not sure anybody said anything about voting for anybody.

He asked about what events would set it off. Between the lines, my posts says the event is a US currency crisis.


There's no currency crisis in America. Our American dollar is rising in value as we speak, hurting American exporters.

Quoted for History

[Gillipig]

No country's government stands a chance against it's own people if they really want to revolt! Doesn't even matter if guns are common in the country. If the government kills it's people it loses, and if it doesn't, it loses.

[Lootifer]

@ PS:

The OP was made with gun laws in mind; that is your constitutional right to bear arms is loosely based (not soley of course, protecting oneself is another base) on the premise that the population needs to be armed such that they can overthrow any potential tyranical governments.

All of my rambling has been within this context.

[Woodruff]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

[Lootifer]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

Ole Saxi never trolls.

Camping still on btw old man?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, do you agree with Saxi's "3 soldiers to 1 police officer" assertion?

I don't know about that particular RATIO, but I agree with the underlying principle that the police officer "comes with many things inherent such as housing" that the soldiers do not, and so there are additional costs involved there.

[Woodruff]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

Ole Saxi never trolls.
Camping still on btw old man?

Camping?

[Lootifer]

lol, the other old man

[BigBallinStalin]

No country's government stands a chance against it's own people if they really want to revolt! Doesn't even matter if guns are common in the country. If the government kills it's people it loses, and if it doesn't, it loses.

It worked for numerous governments: Nazi Germany, fascists Italy, Vichy France, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, the Congo, Egypt for 30 years under Mubarak, still working Saudi Arabia, one part of Yemen, Irsaeli-controlled/occupied territories of Palestine, Nigeria, etc., etc.

[saxitoxin]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

What facets? Security Police?

Anyway, this is rather pointless. Everytime I ask you how an airplane would capture a building and how an airplane would secure prisoners and how an airplane would set-up a roadblock, you scream, throw the checker board against the wall and storm out of the room.

Maybe it's a big secret, like Scott's secret.

[GBU56]

Maybe it's a big secret, like Scott's secret.


Damn it, how did you find out? Did you open that closet?

[Borderdawg]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

What facets? Security Police?

Anyway, this is rather pointless. Everytime I ask you how an airplane would capture a building and how an airplane would secure prisoners and how an airplane would set-up a roadblock, you scream, throw the checker board against the wall and storm out of the room.

Maybe it's a big secret, like Scott's secret.

Careful Saxi.... Don't forget, Woody is an Air Farce Super Soldier with 23 years of Air Farce Super Soldier hand to hand combat training!!!!!!!!!!!

[GBU56]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

What facets? Security Police?

Anyway, this is rather pointless. Everytime I ask you how an airplane would capture a building and how an airplane would secure prisoners and how an airplane would set-up a roadblock, you scream, throw the checker board against the wall and storm out of the room.

Maybe it's a big secret, like Scott's secret.

Careful Saxi.... Don't forget, Woody is an Air Farce Super Soldier with 23 years of Air Farce Super Soldier hand to hand combat training!!!!!!!!!!!

[al-wackidi]

you guys can point your fingers and go 'pew pew' like cowboys all you like

the fact of the matter it is that the us army has been splattering the taliban all over the afghan mountains for many years now. the us army rode over saddam hussein's shitty tanks (but tanks nonetheless) as if it was a training exercise

a 'revolution' of lard-asses with gun licenses is not going to usurp the world's most powerful army. not in million of years.

[BigBallinStalin]

you guys can point your fingers and go 'pew pew' like cowboys all you like

the fact of the matter it is that the us army has been splattering the taliban all over the afghan mountains for many years now. the us army rode over saddam hussein's shitty tanks (but tanks nonetheless) as if it was a training exercise

a 'revolution' of lard-asses with gun licenses is not going to usurp the world's most powerful army. not in million of years.

Suppose they didn't have gun licenses. Then what?

[nietzsche]

What are all you talking about? The guns are just a symbol nowadays.

People are too sensitive in the US, there's no way the army would attack American civilians. Maybe a few, but at some very early point the soldiers would reject fighting against Americans, not to mention in Americans.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard that Ron Paul receives the most donations from US soldiers than any other president.

[Woodruff]

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved.

First of all, there are facets of the Air Force that are certainly capable of capturing and holding territory. But even aside from that aspect, this holds so much ignorance on the subject that you must be trolling.

What facets? Security Police?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Special_Operations_Command

Special Tactics is the US Air Force special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to MARSOC, Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel are typically the first to enter combat and often find themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support. Due to the rigors of the job, Special Tactics yearlong training is one of the most demanding in the military, with attrition rates near 80 to 90 percent.

Anyway, this is rather pointless. Everytime I ask you how an airplane would capture a building and how an airplane would secure prisoners and how an airplane would set-up a roadblock, you scream, throw the checker board against the wall and storm out of the room.

I keep hoping that you actually are interested in educating yourself, and you keep pointing out how extremely unlikely that is.

Maybe it's a big secret, like Scott's secret.

It's no big secret at all. Your claim that the Air Force is irrelevant to capturing and holding territory ignores very basic military doctrine. It ignores critical aspects such as intelligence gathering, softening the enemy with ordinance, and things of that nature. For you to state that the Air Force would be irrelevant to such an action is quite honestly intentional ignorance at this point.

[saxitoxin]

Special Tactics is the US Air Force special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to MARSOC, Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel are typically the first to enter combat and often find themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support. Due to the rigors of the job, Special Tactics yearlong training is one of the most demanding in the military, with attrition rates near 80 to 90 percent.

OK, I read your links. You win! The USAF's 3,000 "Special Tactics" troops will quash any rebellion in the U.S. and take affirmative control of 9 million square kilometers of territory. Using their Odyssean like strength, speed and cunning, each operator will hold-down 1,000 square kilometers from the rebels.

It's no big secret at all. Your claim that the Air Force is irrelevant to capturing and holding territory ignores very basic military doctrine. It ignores critical aspects such as intelligence gathering, softening the enemy with ordinance, and things of that nature. For you to state that the Air Force would be irrelevant to such an action is quite honestly intentional ignorance at this point.

Intelligence-gathering is a combat support operation, not a combat operation. If there are no forces with which to engage an enemy, you can gather intelligence until you're blue in the face and it will be of very little use. Unless these hypothetical rebels restrict their operations to national parks and wheat fields, "softening the enemy with ordnance" means destruction of infrastructure. I've already said that wars are fought to capture or conserve capital and a government will not destroy its own infrastructure.

[Woodruff]

Special Tactics is the US Air Force special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to MARSOC, Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel are typically the first to enter combat and often find themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support. Due to the rigors of the job, Special Tactics yearlong training is one of the most demanding in the military, with attrition rates near 80 to 90 percent.

OK, I read your links. You win! The USAF's 3,000 "Special Tactics" troops will quash any rebellion in the U.S. and take affirmative control of 9 million square kilometers of territory. Using their Odyssean like strength, speed and cunning, each operator will hold-down 1,000 square kilometers from the rebels.

I already knew I was correct, so you're really wasting your time in trying so unsuccessfully to belittle my point.