NationStates Jolt Archive

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?



Naturally, I'd arm myself and gather a following. Freedom fighting and revolution are always viable options when one's country becomes too corrupt.

Once the majority of the population, or a sizable enough minority that is well organized and armed, gets fed up with the current system, revolution once led will occur with hopefully positive results. The problem is essentially, conditions have to unravel to a point where the average middle/working class will step out of their usual timidity and revolt.

By myself? There's nothing I could do, because the entrenched powers currently running our country have the capital, the influence, and the knowledge to bend the system to their will and destroy me.

However, I would try to form a group of similar minded people and try to change the system via democratic and peaceful methods, provided such options are still feasible. If they aren't, there isn't much I could do besides armed rebellion.

Here's another fact: Senate salaries have risen from 98,400 to 154,700 in the period of 1990-2005; that is an increase of $3,753 per year. Their earnings rose 57.2% over that period, while the real earnings of American workers rose 3.9% over those years. There's something seriously wrong here.

Throw pies, of course. :)

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.
I never thought of that. The preamble, right?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In other words, if the overwhelming majority (not 50%, but like.. you know, 95%, if the U.S. was like China) opposes the government, we are the ones that ordain and establish the Constitution.

Dude, nobody covered anything up. That Brazillian was shot, there was an investigation and the investigation discovered he died in very suspicious circumstances. If it was covered up, you wouldnt know it was covered up, duh.

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.

The Declaration of Independence says this, but unless I'm mistaken the Constitution does not.

I never thought of that. The preamble, right?


In other words, if the overwhelming majority (not 50%, but like.. you know, 95%, if the U.S. was like China) opposes the government, we are the ones that ordain and establish the Constitution.


The Declaration of Independence says it much clearer:



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If I had to, the system was broken beyond repair (which would be more serious than the civil war), I'd pretend to be the opposite extreme for sometime, and publicly, then I would kill the children of those in power with a long range rifle. If/when caught, I'd completely, rationally, dispassionately, explain the rational, and wouldn't resist the revenge of the powers that be, never failing to be kind, interested in, and as charming as possible to the footsoldiers.

Oops. I stand corrected. Thank you all.

Become as rich as possible.

Become as rich as possible.

You said it.

First I would flee the country. There I would organize a rebellion re-enter the country and revolt. With my new system, I would become as rich and powerful as possible. When the public gets somewhat angery about my power I would assassinate my top officials. I would put new I would put new officials in power and say the assassinations were for the benifit of the people. There will be some civil disobedience and non-violent resistance in response to this. I will listen to their concerns and do nothing. Then I would finally commit suicide when the population becomes unsure of my apathy. :rolleyes:

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?

I'd celebrate if it was China-like. I'd do nothing if ti was unduly corrupt and oppressive. I'd take my Kar98ks, Mp40s, Panzerfausts, Panzers, and Tigers, and start kicking some ass if it was Orwellian.

Corrupt and oppressive is too general. It is possible for a government to be both and still not be evil.

The most safe and probably the best working way, and it is this I would do, is to destroy the system from within, like a virus. You play the game along and trust nobody. At a certain moment, when I have gathered enough power and I am favored by the people, I make my move. The easiest way to destroy a system, is from within. It can protect itself from the outside world, but it can NOT protect itself from the inside, because that would require the system to attempt suicide. Either way, and I regret this, I think the most common solution is a civil war.

I'd try to organize something, if that failed I'd run like hell.

now about the chinese, let me say that the people for the most part liked the Mao Zedong ok? and they had to sacrifice a few civil liberites in order to get everything up and running and all their people fed. Now most of those civil liberties are back and if there not, there on there way.

god why does everyone hate the chinese?

Well, alot of people in my country (United States) are jealous of China's rapidly expanding economy, even frightened, since a Chinese energy company just tried to buy out an American one, people are freaking out about 'takeovers' and stuff, when we do it to other countries all the time.

You voted for a man to lead our nation in the concept of free enterprise, now stop crying and accept responsibility. If that sounds harsh, why the flip did you vote for the guy?

I am so loyal to my country, if it got off course I'd try to put it pack by force.

I'd try to organize something, if that failed I'd run like hell.

now about the chinese, let me say that the people for the most part liked the Mao Zedong ok? and they had to sacrifice a few civil liberites in order to get everything up and running and all their people fed. Now most of those civil liberties are back and if there not, there on there way.

god why does everyone hate the chinese?

I don't hate the Chinese. I hate the oppressive government that has ruled China with an iron fist since it took over in the 1940's, and denies its people the right to free expression and the other basic freedoms associated with the modern democracies of the world.

Government=/=People/Culture

What do you mean "if"?

I do not care about much things unless they are extraordinarily wrong and the government is randomly killing people for no reason or they are doing something else weird. I pretty much seek the most gain from the situation, I do not want to fail or die or be on the losing side and want to get the most power I can from whatever happens.

I'd move to Mexico, and live for half the price (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed74.html) where at least smaller bills can bribe the corrupted officials.

If? You mean it isn't already? :confused:

Try to become as rich and powerful as possible.

If? You mean it isn't already? :confused:
A lot of people seem to have missed that memo. :D

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?

i voted for rich and powerfull...because in this system "now"thats the only way to survive in there world..you will never have a violent revolt or even seriously challenge those in charge(to well entrenched)to challenge them other then thru the ballot box..good luck,but i will try too.i am also selfish and like nice stuff..lol

your living in a fools paradise if you think the world was not divided up long ago between some seriously rich folks and we are just hampsters on a wheel.

i would vote for a third party and will,but the 2 main parties(in the states)is just the same old men just throwing stupid arguments out(abortion/gun control/gay marriage/etc.)just to devide us and they have.we all run around,i am /for or against these non issues while everything is biz as usual for both parties.soft money hard money...power!

cynical..you bet...i could care less if someone marries there dog/gay lover..has or doesnt have an abortion...yada yada yada.

divide and conquer,and they did that about 100 years ago.
exceptions...sure,but by and large,we are sheeple marching to our respective political parties stupid stances on non issues.

me,i like the constitution,i dont think it is that difficult to decypher the intent of what they meant.yes we could go on and on about semantics,but really,small gov. and leave everyone alone and do what you want without hurting anyone..is that really that complicated?you need a police force to insure the safety of the weaker or vulnerable,you need a military to protect our soverienty,and you need a small gov. to collect small amounts of taxes to supply said military and make a safety net for the less fortunate or disabled.
who ever said the us wanted to be a superpower anyway(the founding fathers that is)i think they just wanted to be left the f alone to go about there lives..ie..freedom of speech/religion etc.
hell with all the guns we have here,noone would dare invade us,the only option would be nbc type stuff,but if we didnt go stomping around the world and didnt bother other countries..maybe no one would want to attack us?
did i say we would have a military?lol

just an aside..i dont know if it was a gag or real,but i saw somewere chris walken is running in 2008?
i would also seriously consider jon stewart if i knew what his agenda would be.
hate to sound like a hick..i am not,but i won't vote for anyone that wants to take my guns..period,i, like the founding fathers am convinced i cant trust people in power,so ty very much,leave me alone and do what you got to do,but you are never gonna convince me you can protect me and mine.i especially dont trust someone who says they can. :fluffle:

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.


i'm right there with you,if you like minimal government intrusion.

dont see it happen but it's fun to dream :)

Corrupt and oppressive is too general. It is possible for a government to be both and still not be evil.



Not exactly, corruption itself is inherently evil. Can't say the same for oppression, since one can be authoritarian and still righteous, but corruption is evil itself.

Not exactly, corruption itself is inherently evil. Can't say the same for oppression, since one can be authoritarian and still righteous, but corruption is evil itself.

Oppression is evil, just like corruption. Oppression is authority imposed in an unjust manner for the sole purpose of maintaining power; its inherent injustice and selfishness are what makes it evil. A government can be authoritarian and righteous as long as it applies its authority in a just manner.

If it was like China or if it was Orwellian, if it was fascist or communist at all or even it was feudal, I’d join a revolution. I will never flee the US. It is part of who I am. If the government wants to oppress me, guess what, they won’t be able to. They’ll have to kill me, and you can’t oppress a corpse!
Liberty or Death!

Oppression is evil, just like corruption. Oppression is authority imposed in an unjust manner for the sole purpose of maintaining power; its inherent injustice and selfishness are what makes it evil. A government can be authoritarian and righteous as long as it applies its authority in a just manner.



Eh, you're right. However, people tend to throw the word "oppression" around loosely these days, making false applications.

If it was like China or if it was Orwellian, if it was fascist or communist at all or even it was feudal, I’d join a revolution. I will never flee the US. It is part of who I am. If the government wants to oppress me, guess what, they won’t be able to. They’ll have to kill me, and you can’t oppress a corpse!
Liberty or Death!


You're a big Metallica fan, I take it?

You're a big Metalaca fan, I take it?
Actually, I like country music. I’ve never heard a Metalaca song, to my knowledge.

I would just endure it, much like the early Christians endured Nero without revolting. This world does not matter, we should think of our eternal fate instead of our temporal one.

Eh, you're right. However, people tend to throw the word "oppression" around loosely these days, making false applications.

People do throw it around quite often, but oppression is only oppression when the punishment elicited doesn't affect the crime; of course, it's quite convinent to throw it around whenever someone attempts to impose discipline, but that's a whole other debate.

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?
i really really should write a book about the dangers of freedoms, and call it 2084. of course, then that would be called a tavian government, and that doesn't sound too catchy. and i don't want my name asociated with a libertarian society.

i really really should write a book about the dangers of freedoms, and call it 2084. of course, then that would be called a tavian government, and that doesn't sound too catchy. and i don't want my name asociated with a libertarian society.You could publish your book under a pseudonym, and then such a society would be designated, for instance, Yupaenuan. And anyone who actually read your book would know that you opposed the modus operandi of the libertarian society.

Oh, I've been predicting a second American revolution for a few years now. Ever since Jimmy Carter failed to meet the expectations of the radical fascimentalist right, politics has been incredibly polarized. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's better to make a certain hot-button issue unthinkable than to go back to making it illegal without providing a better solution. The concept of marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman and due to its nature any man-made variation of that institution would be theologically absurd, but at least give gays civil unions and legal rights.

I fear a real backlash against even those Christians who disagreed with fundamentalist positions once Bush is put out to pasture.

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.

That is in the Declaration of Independence. It states that it is the right of the citizens to alter or abolish such a government if it becomes destructive to the liberties of a people.

I am too cowardly to fight or kill anyone, too distrusting of civil disobiedience, and too worried to stay put. I'd run as far as I can, and do my best to bring the regime down.
I wanted to comment, btw, about the high incumbency rate in America. It's not that there's a conspiracy or anything. Most Ameriicans actually rate Congress lower than the Presidency. However, they rate their own Congressmen very highly because they send pork towards their districts. It is fear of change that makes it as high as it is, and not some ballot stuffing snafu.

Eh, you're right. However, people tend to throw the word "oppression" around loosely these days, making false applications.
Would you consider burning witches at the stake, or stoning homosexuals to be "oppression," or a good enough reason to overthrow the government?

Exploit the situation and try and make some money off it. I'm too lazy to fight and I'm too stubborn to obey.

The US is a great country, but so is Canada. If the US decides to go more psycho than it is already I'd just say "screw it" and head north.

I don't hate the Chinese. I hate the oppressive government that has ruled China with an iron fist since it took over in the 1940's, and denies its people the right to free expression and the other basic freedoms associated with the modern democracies of the world.

Government=/=People/Culture

ok, I understand that they had to sacrifice a few things in the beging, but most of those are back now. The rason the punish those people who DO speak out so harshly is because thats the way they treat all violaters of their laws. Just because their "communist" doesn't mean that they're oppressive and rule with an iron fist. Their military is there to prevent another 1900's from happening not to opress their people. MOst chinese are realtivly happy.

Sorry,, I should make a topic shouldn't I?

Exploit the situation and try and make some money off it. I'm too lazy to fight and I'm too stubborn to obey.


i want to marry you..male or female..that's the attitude.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

Tho I must say my government is unduly corrupt and highly oppressive already!

i want to marry you..male or female..that's the attitude.


are we all invited to this wedding?

if the government did become corrupt id probaly be involved somewhere lol

What do you mean "IF"?

I figure the best option is civil disobedience, though if the government is oppressive enough that the main advantage of this mode of resistance as regards change (global media coverage) is hampered to a degree to cripple it as a mode of protest, one would have to evolve the strategy into rebellion through powerful oratary to withdraw people from apathy, but to avoid idealogues who would simply become the new oppressors a la the pigs from animal farm.
It can't be done through violence alone though, a commonly acceptable alternative would be needed to the current government so that rather than just a blind and bloody revolution occuring, there would be a goal from the very beginning, from which deviation should be discouraged to prevent it morphing into another oppressive regime, the necessity of which we see from the example of Rhodesia, which became a successful democracy afterwards in the form of Zimbabwe with Mugabe as president, but since then has devolved into another oppressive regime, essentially a dictatorship under the man who was once the nations hero.

Hmm... gets me thinkin...

Join up with whatever the party that controlled the govt was and live the high life... There's not that many people to oppress here anyway.

Live the high life yeah, until the regime collapses and you're hunted like an animal... unless of course you managed to convince the rebels you were on their side all along trying 'work from the inside'.
Good luck with that!
:P

-snip-
MOst chinese are realtivly happy.

Tibet.

Regarding the topic, I'm already involved in civil disobedience on a small scale and I plan to be at the heart of the anti-ID cards movement. If and when civil disobedience fails and a govt is truly oppressive, I'll join the resistance.

'nuff said!

You've a problem with ID cards? I'd not have too much of a problem provided that the details on the card are limited to literally physical identifying characteristics.
i.e. retina's fingerprints etc.
Anything beyond that... criminal records, and other things done by you rather than that you were born with, like credit ratings, past indiscretions etc. I'll raise my fist with you in the revolution!

I'd try to organize something, if that failed I'd run like hell.

now about the chinese, let me say that the people for the most part liked the Mao Zedong ok? and they had to sacrifice a few civil liberites in order to get everything up and running and all their people fed. Now most of those civil liberties are back and if there not, there on there way.

god why does everyone hate the chinese?
They are the Great Unknown.

A bit harsh to say that everyone hates the Chinese. In fact, I'd prefer China to alot of countries. Being a relativist, I see no inherent superiority in any particular mode of rule. Like you say, the people in the main were content if not happy with the leadership. (Here I must admit, my knowledge is limited to what I read)
China is going through huge changes right now, and I think it's bloody right in doing so slowly, rapid cultural, social, economic and political change is invariably a destabilising factor, no matter how honest the intentions, given the tendency for such rapid change to lead to unpredictable results.
By taking it slowly, and evolving its systems naturally towards something that serves the common good, in the eyes of the Chinese, not the armchair political scientists of the western world (unfortunately, myself included), China I feel is an excellent example of how a system seen by others to be oppressive can improve itself without selling itself to hollow promises of the superiority of Western Capitalist Democracy, (a system I personally love living in, but I accept may not be for everyone).

Anyone interested in some of the failings of this western culture should read Alan de Botton's 'Status Anxiety'. An excellent book on the failings of a meritocratic society.

Call me a coward, but I believe very few of you would actually revolt, and that I've come up with one of the few honest answers. Would you honestly risk your life and the lives of those you love and care for, just on the off-chance your poorly armed militia can beat your country's military?

This is why I would pursue the non-violent option first. Also, you have to remember that in times of adversity, and under an oppressive regime, fleeing the country can sometimes, I'd even say often, be as difficult and dangerous as joining a militia, in which one not only finds a venue to vent their frustrations at the state, but also a degree of protection.
Would I revolt? I can't say that I would in the current situation, but in teh situation this thread considers, many people would do things that they would not consider under more equitable circumstances.
I'm from Ireland, and from a purely historical perspective, there was always a large cadre of militants willing to die, for varying reasons I'm sure, but the result was the same, and despite three centuries of abject and unmitigated failure, the 'struggle' as they call it continued against the largest empire of the day.

In adversity, people find strength they never knew they had.

Revolution or suicide.

Revolution. The Constitution (for those in America) does state we've the right to overthrow a corrupt government and institute a new one. Yay! Not so how I'd get to the actual overthrow bit yet. Gimme a few years and $30 million.
Where exactly is that?

By the way, an armed revolution in America is useless unless the better part of the military mutinies.

la revolution!

And I feel some of the US military would end up joining when they are told to open fire on their relatives.

An armed revolution does not need to be militarily stronger than the native military.
By organising itself into cells, using guerilla style tactics, sabotaging communication lines, small scale large impact 'damn nuiscance' style strategies can be very effective if time consuming.
Interesting fact (sourced from Douglas Adams, no not 'A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a Radio 4 interview)... New york at any one point in time only has enough food for 3 days.
Now, cutting off ALL lines of supply to the city of New York seems daunting, but by knocking out key rail lines, roads, and waterways with a handful of inexpensive 'dirty-bombs' would force it to rely on air drops, which is not an ideal situation and certainly put the pinch on the incumbent government.

Or have I said too much?

Note, I do not condone such tactics, I prefer the diplomatic route, just incase anyone was getting worried.

la revolution!

And I feel some of the US military would end up joining when they are told to open fire on their relatives.
That presumes that their relatives are fighting. More likely they will be fighting "terrorists". I can't say what would happen, but the military would have to have a good reason to revolt and I don't think that reason will be national ID cards or the Patriot Act, etc. The US Military is a professional corps with its own distinct culture. It's enough to make me wish that we had a peacetime draft, even compulsory military service, so that our military would be made of average citizens rather than professional soldiers.

An armed revolution does not need to be militarily stronger than the native military.
By organising itself into cells, using guerilla style tactics, sabotaging communication lines, small scale large impact 'damn nuiscance' style strategies can be very effective if time consuming.
Interesting fact (sourced from Douglas Adams, no not 'A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a Radio 4 interview)... New york at any one point in time only has enough food for 3 days.
Now, cutting off ALL lines of supply to the city of New York seems daunting, but by knocking out key rail lines, roads, and waterways with a handful of inexpensive 'dirty-bombs' would force it to rely on air drops, which is not an ideal situation and certainly put the pinch on the incumbent government.

Or have I said too much?

Note, I do not condone such tactics, I prefer the diplomatic route, just incase anyone was getting worried.

Starving the city of New York is a good way to get popular support for your revolution.

Touché.
I was more pointing out an example of how a force of minimal military might could have enormous physical effect. The techniques used could be applied to a variety of situations. A few hundred fire alarms bought at the local wal-mart mixed with a bit of home-made explosive could decommission a military base for months if you want to avoid civilian casualties.
Once more I stress that I'm only pointing out how, as said in Les Miserables...'A flea could bite the bottom of the pope in Rome'

Mass civil nonviolent disobedience. After all, if I can get millions of followers, the media will put a bad portrayal of the corrupt government....one nail in the coffin.

I figure the best option is civil disobedience, though if the government is oppressive enough that the main advantage of this mode of resistance as regards change (global media coverage) is hampered to a degree to cripple it as a mode of protest, one would have to evolve the strategy into rebellion through powerful oratary to withdraw people from apathy, but to avoid idealogues who would simply become the new oppressors a la the pigs from animal farm.

In the worst of oppressive regimes, the media has no access.

(It's more interesting when you quote yourself!)

Touché.
I was more pointing out an example of how a force of minimal military might could have enormous physical effect. The techniques used could be applied to a variety of situations. A few hundred fire alarms bought at the local wal-mart mixed with a bit of home-made explosive could decommission a military base for months if you want to avoid civilian casualties.
Once more I stress that I'm only pointing out how, as said in Les Miserables...'A flea could bite the bottom of the pope in Rome'
I don't doubt at all that you could cause a huge problem for the military for years and years, probably take an awful lot of lives in the process. But as far as governments being overthrown, I don't know of any in the modern era that didn't involve

(a) a military mutiny

(b) the ground support of a military of equal or greater strength than the one being overthrown

I can't fathom what country would have any desire to offer military support to a US insurrection.

If it came down to business like this, I would simply get myself and as much of my family as I could out of the country. Call me a coward if you want, but I have too much to live for to spend fighting a long guerilla war against the US Army, especially when what waits for me after the fighting is over is several years of anarchy and unrest. I would miss my home but there are lots of other fine places to live in the world.

Coward isn't a word to even be considered. Especially when family is concerned. There's no shame in a survival instinct. You're right about what you say though, an armed struggle has the difficulty that it is long, protracted and costs many lives. This is why I would definitely opt for the peaceful protest option unless it was completely pointless, and even tehn only enter an armed struggle if family wasn't an issue (i.e. if they've been 'disappeared')

Kill the Crazed leaders.

Now that the poll has been done, it's time to prove a point.

To all the liberals who said that they would assassinate the top leaders or revolt:
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT GUN-CONTROL?

The right to bear arms is the only thing that keeps the social contract valid. We, the people, ordain the Constitution. Well.. How the hell can we ordain it, if the military elites have greater firepower than 90% of U.S. citizens?

Without the right to guns, if the U.S. or any government crumbles, we're basically fucked.

And if you support gun control, because you believe it works.. Well, it would work, then, whether it's a fascist state or not.

e unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?
I would take up arms. When that point is reached, there is only one solution - revolution.

To all the liberals who said that they would assassinate the top leaders or revolt:
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT GUN-CONTROL?[/size]

I tihnk you'll find that most of us on the left oppose gun control.

To all the liberals who said that they would assassinate the top leaders or revolt:
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT GUN-CONTROL?

The right to bear arms is the only thing that keeps the social contract valid. We, the people, ordain the Constitution. Well.. How the hell can we ordain it, if the military elites have greater firepower than 90% of U.S. citizens?

Without the right to guns, if the U.S. or any government crumbles, we're basically fucked.

I think the usual argument is because the military elites will always have greater firepower. Armored vehicles, missiles, rockets, logistics chains, air support, artillery, nukes etc. Gun control arguments based on this assume the military will be instrumental in helping the unduly corrupt and oppressive enforcement, and that they will be able to and choose to use all that support. So the logic goes like, "We're already helpless, it doesn't matter if we're even more helpless."

I wouldn't have much of a choice other than try and eliminate the corrupt government. Unfortunatley, I'd probably be killed. Though I have a better military background than your average citizen I also:
1. Ignore danger to the point of stupidity when it comes to oppresive government
2. am asthmatic

So, I'd probably be shot on my first mission. :p

Gun control...
To be honest, in the event of a revolution being necessary, gun control probably wouldn't be that much of an issue. Revolutionaries, by their nature don't really tend to go about attaining their weapons by legal means, or so I've been led to believe. :sniper:
In any case, as has already been said, in countries where the citizenry have weapons, the police-force and armed forces also tend to be better equipped.
Furthermore, the most successful revolutions have succeeded either by sheer weight of numbers (the poorly armed but effective communist revolutions of teh early 1900's) or effective tactics (guerrilla war-fare).

Gun control...
To be honest, in the event of a revolution being necessary, gun control probably wouldn't be that much of an issue. Revolutionaries, by their nature don't really tend to go about attaining their weapons by legal means, or so I've been led to believe. :sniper:
In any case, as has already been said, in countries where the citizenry have weapons, the police-force and armed forces also tend to be better equipped.
Furthermore, the most successful revolutions have succeeded either by sheer weight of numbers (the poorly armed but effective communist revolutions of teh early 1900's) or effective tactics (guerrilla war-fare).
You ain’t ever been to Texas, have you?

No, I haven't actually, but I must expand on the statement...
In any case, as has already been said, in countries (that aren't completely lawless) where the citizenry have weapons, the police-force and armed forces also tend to be better equipped.

Sorry for any offence caused to any Texans, please don't shoot me or drill my back garden for oil, or construct huge industrial centres next door to large population centres in my country or build any honky tonks or sing any country music or become president of my country or..... etc. :p

If there was a rebellion the first thing to do would be to seize the media for their purposes, I believe which ever side that would take support of CNN, ABC and NBC would win the war. Because then the rest of the world will become sympathatic to that side. But if Revloution fails I'd flee to Cuba and if they didn't want me I'd go to Canada like everyone else would.

You ain’t ever been to Texas, have you?

Well I doubt Texas would rebel, considering Bush lives there and he has alot of support there. In fact I would think if there was a war it would be West where it would start, and the south would all go US. I would see it as a Liberial against Conservative war, if any.

Surely in the event of an oppressive regime, the media is the one thing the government would've clamped first?
Just look at Italy last year under Burlesconi!

Dude, nobody covered anything up. That Brazillian was shot, there was an investigation and the investigation discovered he died in very suspicious circumstances. If it was covered up, you wouldnt know it was covered up, duh.

Just 'cos they got found out doesn't mean they were honest about what happened. It seems as though they deliberately supported totally erroneous reports in order to justify their own actions.

We can't take the posititon that shoot-to-kill is a logical or effective counter-measure to suspected terrorists; if they are known to be carrying explosives, they should be intercepted long before they reach a target - if that is NOT known for certain, then sooner or later innocent people are killed by the very agency trying to protect them. Has to happen. Nobody's right all the time, and yet we expect armed officers to be psychic.

In any case, it's a simple matter to rig up a fail-safe trigger, so that "stopping" a suspect by killing or disabling would be certain to set off the device. So once they've reached their destination, that's it. Game over.

Very true, while I can, at a stretch, accept that a shoot to kill policy may be A policy that could be adopted (not my personal choice though), if such a policy were to be adopted, it should only be implemented if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT that the suspect is indeed a walking bomb. It has already been admitted by the police force that they did not have a positive ID on the suspect, and that they did what they did due to the suspicious circumstances of his evading arrest.
This is not enough to justify shoot to kill, in my view.

Still 8 times after already being downed is overkill don't you think?

Definitely, though I would have to play devils advocate and say that in a situation as highly charged as that which the officers found themselves in, adrenaline could account for the excessiveness. What adrenaline won't let them off for though is the initial decision to shoot the suspect dead based on scant evidence. The decision carries enough gravitas to force second thoughts.
Though as I said, once that decision was made, all else afterwards as regards overzealousness could arguably be put down to adrenaline.

8 times? I was sure it was 5. (Though the number doesn't really count after the first one in the head)

Personally I think it war the officers raging on the fact that they weren't able to get the orginal ones and those extra bullets were the ones that they wanted to go to the first bombers, if you get what I mean. That article says 8. And the police are claiming that only 8 were fired.

Assuming the United States became an actual corrupt dictatorship (something from the Hand Maids Tale for instance), my habit of expressing strong opinons and unwillingness to die would cause me to flee the country (Canada is very close and has a long history of shelthering refugges, from runaway slaves to draft dodgers).

I would not make things easy for my former homeland however and would do everything in my power to undermine the government which forced me to flee in the first place (I can be a very vindictive person). Things like mobalizing international sanctions, printing anti-government propaganda, smuggiling controband or weapons to resistence groups, est. If the government collapses I will return and take my share of the credit (and possibly get a seat of power in the new order :D )...

10 shots, 5-7 hits. OW.

Just to nit-pick, theres no "Side with Government" option....

My mistake, it was 8 shots....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4161572.stm
As for fleeing and leading a foreign campaign, that's probably the best method, provided the country you fled to was not in a diplomatically sensitive situation, forcing it to extradite you. (Which with the fine line between terrorist and freedom fighter is not altogether improbable)

Amestria']Just to nit-pick, theres no "Side with Government" option....
Surely becoming as rich and powerful as possible would suggest siding with the regime?

I fear a real backlash against even those Christians who disagreed with fundamentalist positions once Bush is put out to pasture.

You should, you really should :D (manical laughter).

Surely becoming as rich and powerful as possible would suggest siding with the regime?

Not neccessarily, it suggests seeking out ways to raise yourself up without siding explicitly with anyone. You could side with the rebels (if in your best interest), the Government, or make your own way. The country could fall into chaos and you could try to earn enormous sums of money and influence by becoming a nuclear weapons smuggular or something (for example)...

There needs to be a stand by the Government option!

Fair point, seconded.



(I understand this can't be added after the event, but in the spirit of 'stick it to the man'-ism!)

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?

After the wisdom of Thomas Paine; "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government...." I would stand against the government by all means necessary; including civil-disobedience, and the taking up of arms against the corrupt Federal regime. And stand with all other famous "Traitors", which founded this country; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Patrick Henry, etc.

The Declaration of Independence says this, but unless I'm mistaken the Constitution does not.

Not directly: But to quote legal ratification, in my own:


WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

With the recent cover-up of the Brazilian murder by British police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html), the Clinton and Bush administrations hiding information on 9-11 (http://gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html), The Downing Street Memos (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) and the wave of fraudulent intelligence scandals, the Washington Times collaborating with North Korea, and not only that, but historically... France bombing the Greenpeace ship, Israel plotting a false-flag operation during the Suez canal crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the pre-war intelligence scandals of Vietnam...

And plus, in America... We have a 99% incumbency rate, charges of voting fraud (against both liberals and conservatives), and the Presidency being run by a group that has the openly-stated purpose of world domination...

What would you do if your government became unduly corrupt and oppressive? What if your country became another China? Or if the world lived under a worldwide, Orwellian government, like in 1984?

My government is already corrupt and oppressive, and for now I am sucking it up and trying to help fix things. I do have a couple of deal-breaker issues that would drive me to leave the country entirely, but until my government crosses those lines I will stick it out and try to return my nation to the ideals that once made it great.

Though I chose the rebelion option, who's to say it hasnt already begun ;)

I would just endure it, much like the early Christians endured Nero without revolting. This world does not matter, we should think of our eternal fate instead of our temporal one.

Simple question. If you were on fire, would you put yourself out or endure it and think of the next world?

Ditto, even for those who believe that there is an after-life, it doesn't mean that the 'pre-life' should be tolerated if something can be done about it to make things better. Following that logic to its natural conclusion would harken us back to the days when the Roman Catholic church could justify (well, maybe not justify, but at least avoid positive action) the suffering of the masses by saying 'You'll get your reward in Heaven' back in the dark ages. They're called dark for a reason.
What followed? The American and French Revolutions, and a recoil from the Catholic Church, the effects of which it is still feeling today.

You ain’t ever been to Texas, have you?

I wasn't aware that the average Texan had MBTs in their backyards and SAM sites on their roofs. =p

Hmm, they've gotta be hiding something under those huge hats of theirs...

Like clowns, one should always be wary of people who wear ridiculously proportioned clothes...

Hmm, they've gotta be hiding something under those huge hats of theirs...

Like clowns, one should always be wary of people who wear ridiculously proportioned clothes...

You mean like those old British policemen with their really tall hats? An acquaintance of mine used to joke that the British police didn't usually carry firearms because they kept grenades under that hat.

I've a theory that they're not hats at all, but some form of curled up baboon ready to strike if too many tourists try to make fun of the guard. Royal families have been known to have a penchant for strange pets, and the english are notoriously jealous of French poodles.
If highly trained warrior baboons aren't evidence of an oppressive regime, I don't know what is. :p

Flee the country...it worked for my ancestors once...

Unless the entire world became nightmarish, then I'd go for the rich and powerful as possible option. If I could be head dictator, that would be fuckin' awesome!

Flee the country...it worked for my ancestors once...

Unless the entire world became nightmarish, then I'd go for the rich and powerful as possible option. If I could be head dictator, that would be fuckin' awesome!

Not gonna happen. Post taken.

I'd be cool with it. Hopefully I'd have some nice powerful friends who would give me a small country or something, somewhere around 10 million population-wise, and let me run at as my own.

Why is there and option for rebelion, and not one for starting a revolution?

A revolution is a succesful rebellion, a rebellion is a failed revolution.
Maybe there's reasons to doubt our abilities as revolutionaries?

I'd make a killing selling arms to both sides.

Where're you gonna get all the weapons from?

I'd stand in front of the tanks, and never be seen again.

http://jml.prof.free.fr/doc/TiananMen-photo.jpg

I'd be cool with it. Hopefully I'd have some nice powerful friends who would give me a small country or something, somewhere around 10 million population-wise, and let me run at as my own.

Yes but you don't have powerful friends, you're a normal dude who would be crushed under the heel of the corrupt nation.

If I could be head dictator, that would be fuckin' awesome!

*sigh*

A revolution is a succesful rebellion, a rebellion is a failed revolution.
Maybe there's reasons to doubt our abilities as revolutionaries?
Well, rebellion is just resistance to (a) government.
While a revolution is an overthrowment of the government or traditional ideas in order to replace it with a new government or new ideas. (revolutions are always sucessful, even if the outcome is not as intended)
I'm sure with appropriate guidance, a revolution should be very simple. Then again, you're right, most people are ignorant... but just tease those with a bit of emotion and you have your revolution.

Where're you gonna get all the weapons from?


First sign of a properly opressive set of laws going to parliament, I get myself a plane ticket to Afghanistan. AK-47 for $10. That's where I'll get the weapons from.

Besides, it fitted in with my answer to the poll.

Revolution! What else would I do? I may be for peace, but I know that a corrupt government is simply not acceptable. Besides, I've always wanted to test my idea to use Elfen Lied as a psychological weapon. I'd like to see a conservative withstand that.

Though I chose the rebelion option, who's to say it hasnt already begun ;)
I think it has.

I'm fiercly loyal to my government's (USA) CORE VALUES. The moment an administration violently veers from them, I'll not hesitate to fight back, even if I get killed. My friend is actually a very decent shot, he could probably pick off the head of state.

Though I have heard Canada is quite lovely this time of year...