Second American Revolution

Will the current problems in the US eventually lead to a future civil war? Even if Obama is allowed to fix the economy there's still deep-seated divisions between liberals and conservatives over issues like abortion, immigration, capitalism, international relations and America's wars in the Middle East

How did America come to this? FDR used the same measures to save the US from Depression over 70 years ago. If these reforms fail, America will no longer be a superpower and face rising unemployment, instability and inequality as people refuse to accept that uncontrolled capitalism is an evil that can be equally as totalitarian as fascism or Stalinism

If these protesters get their wish and Obama is overthrown, America can kiss goodbye to its superpower status. The new leader is often as bad as his predecessor, as demonstrated by the recent wave of revolutions in the Middle East

That would be in everyone's interest. The UN, not the USA, should be the world's policeman

Originally posted by Nick1986 Four years after Obama's re-election the president repeals the 22nd Amendment and voices his intent to run for a third term. His decision to withdraw troops from the Middle East proves unpopular among Republicans who have a stake in Iraqi oil. They accuse him of appeasement, and even of being an Al Qaeda sympathiser   Opinion is divided: half of America's population supports Obama (largely out of desire to preserve the union and prevent a second recession) but others advocate more drastic measures. The Tea Party, fearing Obama's socialist healthcare and introduction of gun licenses, form militias with the intent of overthrowing the dictator. Riots break out throughout America over gas prices. In some places these are suppressed, but elsewhere the National Guard refuses to fire on the protesters. The cities are the scene of vicious house-to-house fighting as regular troops are called in to assist the police. Obama takes on emergency powers: suspending voting, reintroducing conscription and mobilising all reservists   Attempts to restore order backfire when the state of Texas declares independence, followed by many of its neighbors. The rebel government, based in Houston, intends to raise an army and overthrow Obama. Regular army units in Texas are forced to retreat, leaving behind their arms dumps, motor pools and airstrips.   The rebel army is equipped with a diverse range of equipment: in some areas they have hunting camo, fanny packs and shotguns, but elsewhere they have armored cars, assault rifles and even air support from traitor National Guard units.   Which side would you support, and who would ultimately win?

Obama is perilously close to a rebellion already.  He is, according to the Secret Service, the most hated and threatened president in the history of their organization.   I doubt he could keep squeezing Americans for four more years, let alone eight more, but to answer your question, the rebels would win.

Why?  Because Obama does not command sufficient loyalty and respect from the American military for them to follow orders to fight against fellow Americans.  He doesn't have the kind of backing it would take to successfully give those orders.

As for weapons, Mexico can furnish whatever the rebels need, which is everything the American military has for ground combat except tanks and aircraft.   If you think collateral damage is the illlegitmate son at the family reunion in places like Afghanistan, imagine what the backlash would be if it happened in Ameirca to Americans as a result of actions by American soldiers.

A civil war is not an option for Obama, nor for any American president.  After all, according to the Declaration of Independence, we not only have a right but a duty to overthrow any leader who fails us or attempts to repress us.

If it comes to a rebellion, the only course open for any American president is to step down for the good of the nation he swore an oath to defend.  No president can make a case for placing himself above the American people and keep his seat in the White House.

 The president serves us; we do not serve him.

Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by Nick1986 That would be in everyone's interest. The UN, not the USA, should be the world's policeman Not when America puts up the lion's share of the troops, the equipment, the logistics and the money. As one of my old coaches used to say:  "If you want to play, you have to make the team. Then you have to earn the right to stay on it." Or, in other words, TANSTAFL -"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by Nick1986 That would be in everyone's interest. The UN, not the USA, should be the world's policeman Not when America puts up the lion's share of the troops, the equipment, the logistics and the money. As one of my old coaches used to say:  "If you want to play, you have to make the team. Then you have to earn the right to stay on it." Or, in other words, TANSTAFL -"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

That can't continue either. Europe, Russia and China should also pull their weight

Another four years of Obama. Wonder how the reactionaries will respond?

Is there any evidence Obama has failed as president or seeks to repress the people?

An overwhelming amount.

Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by Nick1986 That would be in everyone's interest. The UN, not the USA, should be the world's policeman You would allow an organization that operates in favor of dictators and oppressors of human rights to run your country? I wouldn't.

The US government also favors oppressors if they act in their interest. Who supplied the Mujahideen in the 1980s, who trained Saddam's army, who armed the IRA, who supported the dictatorships in Latin America, and who continues to support the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians? If the UN were stronger and able to do their job, wars would be a thing of the past


Edited by Nick1986 - 08-Nov-2012 at 08:38