NationStates Jolt Archive

American Revolution

Ive always had slightly revolutionary leanings and have had discussions on the subject with many different people. Something that always comes up is how it would be possible, tossing aside such things as they do not enter into this discussion, I yesterday considered a scenario that I had never considered before: International intervention. So my question to those who don't live in the US (Or those that do if they are interested):

If the US were to experience escalating civil unrest to the point that it climaxes into a civil war, would you support, in the form of UN or other coalition, intervention into the conflict? If “necessary”, would you support occupation of it?

heehee occupation of the US! I vote we give total control to Iran. If there was complete civil unrest and the country was in chaos I think the government would clamp down in a V for Vendetta style where the government are completely intolerant. Also intervention unless ist poses a threat to international security, the government asks for it, or the country is to weak to repel an intervention force cannot/will not be santioned. To intervene in the US? Well it sounds like fun, but the US have the largest arsnel of nuclear weapons in the world, somehow I don't think the intervention force would get past Mexico.

If the US were to experience escalating civil unrest to the point that it climaxes into a civil war, would you support, in the form of UN or other coalition, intervention into the conflict? If “necessary”, would you support occupation of it?

I do not think that the American People would take to kindly to foreign troops on our soil.

I do not think that the American People would take to kindly to foreign troops on our soil.

Oh the irony.

@OP - I'd support international arbitration and peacekeeping.

As long as said intervention is, as you said, in the form of a UN controlled (or at the very least supported) coalition, yes. I would say no to an independant intervention, say, just Canada or something.(like that would happen :p ) However, the UN would have to be drastically streamlined before It could handle stopping a US civil war on the scale of the one you propose.





PS. Obviously, I disagree with the Iraq war as well.

heehee occupation of the US! I vote we give total control to Iran. If there was complete civil unrest and the country was in chaos I think the government would clamp down in a V for Vendetta style where the government are completely intolerant. Also intervention unless ist poses a threat to international security, the government asks for it, or the country is to weak to repel an intervention force cannot/will not be santioned. To intervene in the US? Well it sounds like fun, but the US have the largest arsnel of nuclear weapons in the world, somehow I don't think the intervention force would get past Mexico.

I think it is a given that, facing deep enough odds the US government would ask for assistance, I was relying on that scenario.

As long as said intervention is, as you said, in the form of a UN controlled (or at the very least supported) coalition, yes. I would say no to an independant intervention, say, just Canada or something.(like that would happen :p ) However, the UN would have to be drastically streamlined before It could handle stopping a US civil war on the scale of the one you propose.


Unless China or Russia is feeling particularly "Generous" in terms of recources and troops.

I think it is a given that, facing deep enough odds the US government would ask for assistance, I was relying on that scenario.

And without US acceptence of said resolution, any foreign troops on US soil will be seen as an invasion and be dealt with.

And without US acceptence of said resolution, any foreign troops on US soil will be seen as an invasion and be dealt with.

If irony were strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.

And without US acceptence of said resolution, any foreign troops on US soil will be seen as an invasion and be dealt with.

true. Very true...

Which side would they be intervening on?

America probably would be better off without foreign intervention. Unless one side poses a clear threat to the rest of the world I don't think that we should have intervention. Historically, intervention in the US has not been to serve our interests but rather to serve the interests of the intervener and there is nothing saying that what would be good for America and what the interveners would want would be the same. I know that the first Civil War would have been a lot different if intervention had taken place and I believe it wouldn't be different in a good way.

America probably would be better off without foreign intervention. Unless one side poses a clear threat to the rest of the world I don't think that we should have intervention. Historically, intervention in the US has not been to serve our interests but rather to serve the interests of the intervener and there is nothing saying that what would be good for America and what the interveners would want would be the same. I know that the first Civil War would have been a lot different if intervention had taken place and I believe it wouldn't be different in a good way.

Read Harry Turtledove or Harry Harrison. Good alternative History authors.

As to the real American Civil War, intervention on the side of the Confederates nearly occured.

I'd rather the world kept out of America seeing as how its not are war (just like in Africa)

Though I’m all for arms sales, drug smuggling and supporting a right wing genocide loving maniac after all America has done the same we ought to return the favour

Highly unlikely a scenerio of this would play out anytime in the near future. I think there are enough safeguards in place within our political system to assure this type of scenerio would not take place. I believe the root cause of civil unrest is that it is the only way to make change. Our political process is such a way that there is always a ray of hope for the masses that change can be made. That is of course they disagree with the current political appointies.

As far as foreign occupation force in the US. It would make Iraq look like a safe place. The death toll on foreign troops would not be acceptable by the force that was deployed.

true.
Get your guns ready, Just In Case.

:mp5: :sniper: :p

oh oh! May I suggest you use homemade bombs? You could could, you know, improvise a device to explode.

America probably would be better off without foreign intervention. Unless one side poses a clear threat to the rest of the world I don't think that we should have intervention. Historically, intervention in the US has not been to serve our interests but rather to serve the interests of the intervener and there is nothing saying that what would be good for America and what the interveners would want would be the same. I know that the first Civil War would have been a lot different if intervention had taken place and I believe it wouldn't be different in a good way.

Parallels... with Iraq War getting stronger... Irony... building... must... talk... like... this...

Okay I'll stop. I feel the point's been made.

Highly unlikely a scenerio of this would play out anytime in the near future. I think there are enough safeguards in place within our political system to assure this type of scenerio would not take place. I believe the root cause of civil unrest is that it is the only way to make change. Our political process is such a way that there is always a ray of hope for the masses that change can be made. That is of course they disagree with the current political appointies.

unless of course a state wants to leave the union *chews tobacco*

As far as foreign occupation force in the US. It would make Iraq look like a safe place. The death toll on foreign troops would not be acceptable by the force that was deployed.

ah but do Americans have the will to fight after all the will to fight has never really been tested in modern western powers so you may end up with the populations just giving up seeing the futility (especially if its after a period of bloody civil war)

Same rules would have to apply as any other UN intervention, you know, the US government requesting it, and the SC passing a resolution and all that.

Anyway, would probably be too late before any kind of force can be assembled and most people in the US will have killed each other by then.

Read Harry Turtledove or Harry Harrison. Good alternative History authors.

As to the real American Civil War, intervention on the side of the Confederates nearly occured.
Uh... I am not interested in alternative history. I said first civil war to indicate the real civil war as opposed to this 2nd hypothetical civil war. Sorry, for the somewhat improper terminology. I KNOW who the intervention would have favored. The confederates were hoping that their cotton would be so important that they would receive military aid from britain which is why it would be different and from my point of view unfavorable.

If it really was just a power struggle between two similar factions for territory or political dominance then yes, I would entirely condone a Neutral Intervention. If it was a revolution against Government by overwhelming fascist or theocratist movements then yes, I would support an international force sent to back up the US military if no objections were made by them. In more or less any other circumstance, my views on intervention would depend entirely on the reasons for the divide.

Uh... I am not interested in alternative history. I said first civil war to indicate the real civil war as opposed to this 2nd hypothetical civil war. Sorry, for the somewhat improper terminology. I KNOW who the intervention would have favored. The confederates were hoping that their cotton would be so important that they would receive military aid from britain which is why it would be different and from my point of view unfavorable.

Yep and the Trent nearly brought the British in. Thank God for the Prince Consort rewording a messege.

As to my point about Alternate History, both authors have books on what we could have been looking at if the British had intervened.

ah but do Americans have the will to fight after all the will to fight has never really been tested in modern western powers so you may end up with the populations just giving up seeing the futility (especially if its after a period of bloody civil war)

I have travelled alot in the world in my time. Been in a war and seen alot of bad things. I still believe that if cornered and faced with an occupation force Americans would be as ruthless or more than any group on this planet. Terrorist would only dream of the brutality that the American populace would wreak on a foreign force. However with that said you would have pockets of people welcoming such forces. We all know what type that would be.

I have travelled alot in the world in my time. Been in a war and seen alot of bad things. I still believe that if cornered and faced with an occupation force Americans would be as ruthless or more than any group on this planet. Terrorist would only dream of the brutality that the American populace would wreak on a foreign force.

look what happened to the Germans after seeing there country torn apart I think Americans would behave much the same if there cities were levelled and starvation become commonplace (especially with American nuclear weapons)

However with that said you would have pockets of people welcoming such forces.We all know what type that would be.

the Northern states?

Wait...intervention couldn't happen, cuz the US is on the security council.

Yep and the Trent nearly brought the British in. Thank God for the Prince Consort rewording a messege.

As to my point about Alternate History, both authors have books on what we could have been looking at if the British had intervened.
Ah, I thought it was a misunderstanding on terminology as we have not had a 2nd Civil War yet. You know, a crack at my intelligence as I looked up Harry Turtledove and noticed something about an alien invasion during WW2 and didn't see the other part about the southern victory.

look what happened to the Germans

Then look at the japanese. Their emperor had to outright admit he wasnt a god before they even considered giving up.

Ah, I thought it was a misunderstanding on terminology as we have not had a 2nd Civil War yet. You know, a crack at my intelligence as I looked up Harry Turtledove and noticed something about an alien invasion during WW2 and didn't see the other part about the southern victory.

Gotta admit, it is interesting to think about if aliens did invade during WWII. :D

Anyways....back to thread at hand.

I'm a US citizen, and I would oppose intervention, most likely. The fact that I would likely to be supporting the side that would not receive foreign support has something to do with that.

It would depend on the circumstances, though - if it resulted in genocide or another severe humanitarian crisis, and the foreign intervention seemed to have a decent chance of actually solving the problem, I would support it.

Then look at the japanese. Their emperor had to outright admit he wasnt a god before they even considered giving up.

ah but that’s not western culture is it

Nobody yet seems to have brought up an economic interest Europe might have in keep the original US government in power, they have one, do they not? America is still the richest singular country in the world. Dont forget any debt that might become defaulted should a new government come into power.

Nobody yet seems to have brought up an economic interest Europe might have in keep the original US government in power, they have one, do they not? America is still the richest singular country in the world. Dont forget any debt that might become defaulted should a new government come into power.

good point maybe we should take our money whilst America is too busy fighting itself Alaska maybe?

And I think American companies will surely move overseas once a war begins so the European economy might actually recover and be stronger than before having said that I don’t think I want big American companies in Europe (and won't it be funny seeing the Mexicans arguing about the USian immigration issue)

Interesting scenario. I would support UN intervention if the USA were to plunge into civil war. Civil wars are amongst the most horrific and catastrophic conflicts in history e.g. Russian Civil War. It would be the duty of the International community to bring a quick close to civil hostilities via direct intervention, followed by arbitration and peacekeeping. Securing WMD (Nuclear launch sites etc.) would have to be a priority in addition to quelling unrest in major cities, supplying food, shelter and medical care to civilians e.t.c.


In a practical situation, even the largest possible UN Peacekeeping force wouldn't be able to end the conflict outright, but might bring any civil war to a more desirable ending for the US and the World.

Interesting scenario. I would support UN intervention if the USA were to plunge into civil war. Civil wars are amongst the most horrific and catastrophic conflicts in history e.g. Russian Civil War. It would be the duty of the International community to bring a quick close to civil hostilities via direct intervention. Securing WMD (Nuclear launch sites etc.) would have to be a priority in addition to quelling unrest in major cities, supplying food and shelter to civilians e.t.c.


In a practical situation, even the largest possible UN Peacekeeping force wouldn't be able to end the conflict outright, but might bring any civil war to a more desirable ending for the US and the World.

At the same time, has intervention in a civil war ever turned out positively. It is at best a bloody quagmire, or at worst, an occupation that is neither successful and cannot retreat without re-escalating the conflict (A waste of both money and lives).

In the event of an American revolution, they are likely trying to topple the current government, if you try to keep the aforementioned gvernment afloat, you will end up another factor on the revolutionaries "to-do list". While securing launch sites seems a practical idea, the standing government would not allow it and the the revolutionaries would be inflamed by it.

What happens when the "unrest" dies. Will you (UN) institute the new government yourself? Intervention in a civil war is among the most dangerous of all good intentions.

Nobody yet seems to have brought up an economic interest Europe might have in keep the original US government in power, they have one, do they not? America is still the richest singular country in the world. Dont forget any debt that might become defaulted should a new government come into power.
I should think not. The US currently owes other nations about $2.5 trillion more than they owe it. A new government, especially post-civil war, would be wise to keep that quiet.

And what makes you think our economic interests in the US have anything to do with the government? Corporations will be more than happy to continue to operate in our nations regardless of the US administration.

Securing WMD (Nuclear launch sites etc.)

interesting point would Americans be willing help an international force remove WMD's? would it be justifiable to do it considering America has enough nukes to end the world a few time over? and could such an operation be pulled off without a nuclear counter attack?

I guess it could be up to Americans really and the results don't look good

Nobody yet seems to have brought up an economic interest Europe might have in keep the original US government in power, they have one, do they not? America is still the richest singular country in the world.

A full scale US civil war would wipe that out quickly.

Intervene? No bloody way. Just let them kill each other. When nobody is left, Mexico may have the West back. Canada can have the Northeast and join the EU.

A full scale US civil war would wipe that out quickly.

Intervene? No bloody way. Just let them kill each other. When nobody is left, Mexico may have the West back. Canada can have the Northeast and join the EU.

You know... When you put it that way... ;)

Once they've killed each other, the UN goes in and CONQUERS a weakened USA! Everyone can have a piece of American pie!


No seriously. If we were talking about a country which didn't have WMD and no great economic interests, I'd support UN peacekeeping and aid only. But aiding the existing government and securing peace of mind that nuclear warheads wouldn't be launched or exported would have to be imperative in the case of a US civil war. The next US government, if the previous one where toppled, would be idealogically unpredictable.

A full scale US civil war would wipe that out quickly.

Intervene? No bloody way. Just let them kill each other. When nobody is left, Mexico may have the West back. Canada can have the Northeast and join the EU.

Mexico is starting the reclamation of the SW.:p
------------------------------------------------
If I get the SE, then w00t!

Prepare to be on the Moon by 2025!

(Mexico, we get all the space centers. Trade ya for South Florida.:p )
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness, that would be horrible...

But this may happen.

The Republican vs. Democrat vs. The Collective Independent War.

Who would win? Hmm...

But, the divisions would be:

repub in East
democrat in the West
the Collectives in small patches scattered around there, maybe a state or two somewhere...

If I get the SE, then w00t!
It's probably reasonable to state that the Southeast would be unlikely to be given to anyone who genuinely wanted it.

It's probably reasonable to state that the Southeast would be unlikely to be given to anyone who genuinely wanted it.

True... besides, the Repubs may take that, what with SC and all...

Mexico is starting the reclamation of the SW.:p
------------------------------------------------
If I get the SE, then w00t!

Prepare to be on the Moon by 2025!

(Mexico, we get all the space centers. Trade ya for South Florida.:p )
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness, that would be horrible...

But this may happen.

The Republican vs. Democrat vs. The Collective Independent War.

Who would win? Hmm...

But, the divisions would be:

repub in East
democrat in the West
the Collectives in small patches scattered around there, maybe a state or two somewhere...

In really cant see any war that fights between dems and repubs. Those docile majorities would likely not even engange in any fight. I see a more likely scenario being Power element (Both dems and repubs) vs. FreeFighter1 vs. Freefighter2.

Freefighter1-2 would likely be factions which are equal in opposition to an oppressive government but steeply divided on the resiolution of such. there would likely be powerful elements of socialist and minarchist leanings.

The US could survive a revolution without intervention (Probably better without it) but I cant see it being a single unified country again, probably three or four smaller countries revolving around powerful cities and economic structures.

In really cant see any war that fights between dems and repubs. Those docile majorities would likely not even engange in any fight. I see a more likely scenario being Power element (Both dems and repubs) vs. FreeFighter1 vs. Freefighter2.

Freefighter1-2 would likely be factions which are equal in opposition to an oppressive government but steeply divided on the resiolution of such. there would likely be powerful elements of socialist and minarchist leanings.

The US could survive a revolution without intervention (Probably better without it) but I cant see it being a single unified country again, probably three or four smaller countries revolving around powerful cities and economic structures.


I wouldn't be so sure about Democrats vs. Republicans. They can seem extremely partisan to me. But you are right. Most likely a revolution would be Government vs. Revolutionary group 1 vs. Revolutionary group 2 e.t.c.

But that situation you outlined (a permanently divided USA) would be a justification for intervention. That's three or four new countries for the world to worry about, perhaps all of which have nuclear weapons. Intervention could prevent that.

In really cant see any war that fights between dems and repubs. Those docile majorities would likely not even engange in any fight. I see a more likely scenario being Power element (Both dems and repubs) vs. FreeFighter1 vs. Freefighter2.

Freefighter1-2 would likely be factions which are equal in opposition to an oppressive government but steeply divided on the resiolution of such. there would likely be powerful elements of socialist and minarchist leanings.

The US could survive a revolution without intervention (Probably better without it) but I cant see it being a single unified country again, probably three or four smaller countries revolving around powerful cities and economic structures.

You forgot the fact that parties can and do change their ways...

repub in East
democrat in the West
the Collectives in small patches scattered around there, maybe a state or two somewhere...

That seems like a rather odd division to me. Unless by west you mean coastal states, and east you mean the south and the plains.

I wouldn't be so sure about Democrats vs. Republicans. They can seem extremely partisan to me. But you are right. Most likely a revolution would be Government vs. Revolutionary group 1 vs. Revolutionary group 2 e.t.c.

But that situation you outlined (a permanently divided USA) would be a justification for intervention. That's three or four new countries for the world to worry about, perhaps all of which have nuclear weapons. Intervention could prevent that.

I would have thought the World would be happier with 4 smaller countries that are relatively frosty toward one another than a single unified hyper-power. Secondly, I ask again- When has intervention EVER been a positive thing in a civil war?

I think as much as dems and repubs pretend to be at each others throats they both prefer the comfortable stagnancy of the current government- at least enough for them to tells themselves somethings different even when nothing has changed.

Okay, there has never been a thread to anger me as much as this one. Do you in foreign countries like YOUR governments? Do you approve of everything your country does? I'd be surprised if you did. All this "Oh-ho! Isn't THIS ironic?" bullshit is really starting to piss me off. Did any of you who wrote something like that consider for an attosecond that maybe, just MAYBE there are, say 48% of us Americans did not want this current administration in 2004, and 52% of us didn't want it in 2000? Did that thought cross your minds? No, it clearly did not. Maybe there are those of us who are against our government acting as though it's the world's fucking police? Maybe I'M pissed off that my country was founded on the principle that the government should protect its citizens' rights and they're doing the exact opposite! I fucking HATE my government! But you know what? I still love my country, and it pisses me off that you would assume that we all believe that our country's job to invade foreign nations at will! Well, I don't! As I don't support my country doing it, I wouldn't allow any country to do it to us! But you know what? I live here, I can separate my fellow Americans from our fucked up government and can criticize from the inside. When non-Americans do it, it's just trite and annoying.

SNIP

care to contribute to the thread or are you just here to somehow disprove the oh so delicious irony?

care to contribute to the thread or are you just here to somehow disprove the oh so delicious irony?
So, you're from the United Kingdom, eh? I really don't see how you're any different. Care to look at your country's foreign intervention history like you've looked at mine's? Well, I can start really far back, but let's focus on more modern times. First was dividing up Africa without any regard to millennia-old tribal alliances and animosities. That was freaking brilliant. Next was addicting the entire nation of China to opium, conveniently produced in your "possession" of India. All of this for the purpose of reprisal for them taking all your money because they had all you wanted and they wanted nothing you had. Hey, you got Hong Kong out of it though! Then was giving Palestine to the Jews. I'm not anti-semitic (I am in favor of all semites: Jews, Palestinians and Arabs living happily and in peace), but that was just a GENIUS move on your country's part, wasn't it? Luckily nothing bad's ever come of that! Why not follow that up by separating Hindu and Muslim India? Hey! You did that too! It was smart, because Pakistan and India have been buddy-buddy ever since! Why not separate a small portion of southern Iraq right before you give them independence and call it Kuwait? What bad could have come of that? When Argentina tries to reclaim the Malvinas, come down with unneccesary force! The UN wants you to invade Iraq because of how you shook things up with separating Kuwait? Why not? Kosovo? Sure! The US wants you to invade Iraq just for shits and giggles? You might as well, your Blair is just Bush's bitch anyways!

Don't you pretend your country's shit doesn't stink, because you have a MUCH worse track record than us, limeys.

So, would you in the UK support an occupation of your country in the midst of a civil war?

Le grand snip

*cough* I'm singlehandedly responsible for pointing out the delicious irony... and I'm an American.

Though I'm genuinely happy someone understood what I meant. I was beginning to wonder whether anyone got it.:p

care to contribute to the thread or are you just here to somehow disprove the oh so delicious irony?

Ever consider I didnt make this thread for irony, but instead for perspective? :rolleyes:

Comparitives aside, I think I found what I was looking for. It is highly likely that an international force would come to the aid of the US Government in the event of a civil war. The amount of nukes being forced to play musical chairs after every rebel action is, as much as I regret to say it, a decent justification. However, justified or not, intervention into a civil war has never worked out well.

*cough* I'm singlehandedly responsible for pointing out the delicious irony... and I'm an American.

Though I'm genuinely happy someone understood what I meant. I was beginning to wonder whether anyone got it.:p

There was no "delicious irony", I had the correlation in mind the moment I began the thread. I think you were the only one who didnt notice it was implied. That may have been why almost no one was entertaining your posts. :rolleyes:

There was no "delicious irony", I had the correlation in mind the moment I began the thread. I think you were the only one who didnt notice it was implied. That may have been why almost no one was entertaining your posts. :rolleyes:

Calm down, skipper. It was still ironic, based not on what you said, but on the responses of those I quoted. The American perspective on being occupied, when compared to the war in Iraq, is HIGHLY ironic.

*cough* I'm singlehandedly responsible for pointing out the delicious irony... and I'm an American.

Though I'm genuinely happy someone understood what I meant. I was beginning to wonder whether anyone got it.:p
Oh, it's totally different if we do it. Our government sucks, we know it firsthand. I just get offended when non-Americans do it.

Calm down, skipper. It was still ironic, based not on what you said, but on the responses of those I quoted. The American perspective on being occupied, when compared to the war in Iraq, is HIGHLY ironic.

Only if they support the war in Iraq.

Oh, it's totally different if we do it. Our government sucks, we know it firsthand. I just get offended when non-Americans do it.

Meh, I don't really have a problem with it. If someone's got a good point, I don't care if they come from Pennsylvania or Swaziland.

SNIP

yep over 25% of the world surface oh it does feel good especially the part about us giving most of the world a trancing at one point or another through time :D

never mind the fact that I detect no irony in that post at all tsk tsk please use our language correctly if your going to speak it!

So, would you in the UK support an occupation of your country in the midst of a civil war?

yep hopefully by the Germans (who considering how large a peacekeeping force they have it will be) because if there is anyone you can trust its the Germans (no joke there, there good people)

Calm down, skipper. It was still ironic, based not on what you said, but on the responses of those I quoted. The American perspective on being occupied, when compared to the war in Iraq, is HIGHLY ironic.
Ironic? Considering that we went to war on false premises it is hardly ironic. We were told there were WMD that needed to be removed for our own safety. Later we found out there were none. There is no irony. Just bad decisions.

Ironic? Considering that we went to war on false premises it is hardly ironic. We were told there were WMD that needed to be removed for our own safety. Later we found out there were none. There is no irony. Just bad decisions.

Decisions based on bad intel.

Decisions based on bad intel.
Whatever, decisions that ended up being wrong but at the time we thought they were correct.

Whatever, decisions that ended up being wrong but at the time we thought they were correct.

Happens all the time in war.

Decisions based on bad intel.

That is what they said... they also said Bush won Florida in 2000, that they were going to catch Osama, and that we would scrap the shuttle by 2010... so far, everything the Bush Admin. says is questionable at best.

That is what they said... they also said Bush won Florida in 2000, that they were going to catch Osama, and that we would scrap the shuttle by 2010... so far, everything the Bush Admin. says is questionable at best.

Bush did win Florida in 2000. Even the press recount proved that. As for the shuttle, the replacement is in the works. As to Osama, it is hard to find someone in mountainous terrain, especially if they know the terrain. Come to think of that, we have not heard much from him in a long time. Maybe he is dead?

So, would you in the UK support an occupation of your country in the midst of a civil war?

Yes. As long as it was a legal UN resolution.

Not all wars are the same and it is ridiculous to make a hypothesis about a war in which you have no understanding of context, main players, history, etc. You cannot make a decision about a situation if you have no understanding of it.

Not all wars are the same and it is ridiculous to make a hypothesis about a war in which you have no understanding of context, main players, history, etc. You cannot make a decision about a situation if you have no understanding of it.


True there's a lot of gaps to be filled in order to make a meaningful hypothesis but it's fun all the same.

No. I would not support intervention in an American Civil War. Firstly, America is one of the most heavily armed nations on the planet, if the world's children were sent there it would be a bloodbath, like Iraq times Vietnam times a thousand.

Secondly, people today assume that a civil war is always a bad thing. Not so, on a wider scale an armed conflict can resolve a nation's longstanding issues. Besides, a nation that has not known war cannot truly appreciate peace. Large-scale invasion of the USA has been impossible for hundreds of years, and as such many Americans have a perverse attitude towards war.

Thirdly, America is entrusted with the position of the World's hyperpower, if it gets to a situation where America is to erupt into Civil War, it is fair to say that it is no longer deserving of that job. Foreign intervention would be in effect giving America a second chance at running the world, and with a job that important you simply do not get, nor should you, a second chance.

No. I would not support intervention in an American Civil War. Firstly, America is one of the most heavily armed nations on the planet, if the world's children were sent there it would be a bloodbath, like Iraq times Vietnam times a thousand.

Secondly, people today assume that a civil war is always a bad thing. Not so, on a wider scale an armed conflict can resolve a nation's longstanding issues. Besides, a nation that has not known war cannot truly appreciate peace. Large-scale invasion of the USA has been impossible for hundreds of years, and as such many Americans have a perverse attitude towards war.

Thirdly, America is entrusted with the position of the World's hyperpower, if it gets to a situation where America is to erupt into Civil War, it is fair to say that it is no longer deserving of that job. Foreign intervention would be in effect giving America a second chance at running the world, and with a job that important you simply do not get, nor should you, a second chance.

Hey, we already had a civil war. It was one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world, and we only had a quarter of the population we have now.

A large-scale invasion has been impossible for hundreds of years? It hasn't even been two hundred years since we were last invaded!

I dont think the 2nd American Civil war is hypthetical at all....Not to sound like a loon but it seems very possible to me as an American. And it already started years ago with the patriot act. I also know many people, and know of many militias who would love a crack at the Federal government here. If the people of the United States were to rise up against their government it'd be for a damn good reason and I'd join the rebels in a heartbeat. Now, I would not support foriegn intervention unless it was on the side of the rebels. Givin that the Federal Government has proven its self unfit to rule by incompotence or eliminating rights. I don't know if foreign soldiers could understand what we'd be fighting for though. Perhaps they'd see it if the Federal US was also fighting another world war abroad? anyway, now that I'm sure the NSA has already gotten everything about me and will soon crash in through the ceiling and dissapere into a black bag....

Oh behave. The american militia movement is petty, sparse and unorganised. They recieve little political support from mainstream society as there is no coherent political line within the movement. Ultimately the only thing that bonds the militias together is a shared sense of paranoia and lust for power.

Oh behave. The american militia movement is petty, sparse and unorganised. They recieve little political support from mainstream society as there is no coherent political line within the movement. Ultimately the only thing that bonds the militias together is a shared sense of paranoia and lust for power.


No. See, if the people rose agaisnt the government, it'd be different, the militias would support them. and the government would never be able to countrol an entire rebbelious society. And the militias are more advanced than you probably think so from what i've seen. BTW I dont agree with many militais, some seem just plain stupid, arrogant, racist, and yes, unorganized.

No. See, if the people rose agaisnt the government, it'd be different, the militias would support them. and the government would never be able to countrol an entire rebbelious society. And the militias are more advanced than you probably think so from what i've seen. BTW I dont agree with many militais, some seem just plain stupid, arrogant, racist, and yes, unorganized.
The people are not going to rise against the government. Most are too content with how things are to even attempt to throw it all away. Sure, we might dislike certain aspects of our government but not enough to risk our lives opposing it. Unless we dive into a massive depression there will be no revolution and even if we dive into a great depression we still are unlikely to have a revolution.

That raised a question to me. In the event of this, Does anyone here believe that the rebels would be able to wage a guerrila war effective enough to build a large conventional army that would be able to defeat the Government. I believe they could. But it obviously wouldnt be easy. It would probably be allot like Vietnam, with the Federal gov. winning allot of battles but never being able to win the war.

I do not think that the American People would take to kindly to foreign troops on our soil.
No country does.

That raised a question to me. In the event of this, Does anyone here believe that the rebels would be able to wage a guerrila war effective enough to build a large conventional army that would be able to defeat the Government. I believe they could. But it obviously wouldnt be easy. It would probably be allot like Vietnam, with the Federal gov. winning allot of battles but never being able to win the war.

Maoist.

Your guerilla army will isolate the people you will win over by seperating them from the armed struggle from the start. You isolate them from military power and they will be subsequently isolated from state power.

Maoist.

Your guerilla army will isolate the people you will win over by seperating them from the armed struggle from the start. You isolate them from military power and they will be subsequently isolated from state power.

I like that. I need to read more about Mao's revolution, I some about it, but I need to know more.

I'm not American and would probably not support intervention, unless genocide was occuring, or one of the sides was Nazi.

Another thought is that in an American Civil War, I think the sides would be fighting not for control of the cities, but for control of the nuclear silos.

The death toll on foreign troops would not be acceptable by the force that was deployed.
Why do Americans think they're the toughest people on Earth?

We all know what type that would be.
Immigrants!?

Why do Americans think they're the toughest people on Earth?

every country thinks they are its especially easy to do when you’ve never really been tested (pretty much the western world)

Hey, we already had a civil war. It was one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world.
No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.

No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.

It was and still remains the most bloodiest war on American Soil.

Theres plenty reason to believe a rebellion composed even only of 30% of the American people would succeed. Of course, I hardly think its a given that their will be complete military loyalty.

The best advantage of rebels has usually been their decentralized organization, thus you cant fight them all at once. The most famous advantage is usually of proportion i.e:

A single large caliber round can permanently disable most modern fighter jets.

That said, without overwhelming public support, a revolution has little to no chance. And if it does succeed as such, it will likely be more oppressive and volatile than the one it superceded.

It was and still remains the most bloodiest war on American Soil.

American Soil? With capital letters? That strikes me as if you believe that soil that happens to belong to one of the United States is somehow sacred and better than any other soil in the world.

Anyway, there haven't been a whole lot of wars where fighting took place in the United States, so that's a very tall order. Still, I will agree that our Civil War was terrible, but there have been many worse wars in world history.

It was and still remains the most bloodiest war on American Soil.
Indubitably. Just not in the history of the world.

Indubitably. Just not in the history of the world.

Agreed. I think World War II was the bloodest in World History. :D

No seriously. If we were talking about a country which didn't have WMD and no great economic interests, I'd support UN peacekeeping and aid only. But aiding the existing government and securing peace of mind that nuclear warheads wouldn't be launched or exported would have to be imperative in the case of a US civil war. The next US government, if the previous one where toppled, would be idealogically unpredictable.

Some of us have plans about that ;) My location would make a new government relatively easy to establish. Personally, I'd essentially rebuild the place on the ideas of Jeffersonian America, i.e. a very libertarian(small l) society with emphasis on the non-aggression principle. I think I've actually written my ideas down somewhere.

Some of us have plans about that ;) My location would make a new government relatively easy to establish. Personally, I'd essentially rebuild the place on the ideas of Jeffersonian America, i.e. a very libertarian(small l) society with emphasis on the non-aggression principle. I think I've actually written my ideas down somewhere.

And it was Jefferson's policies that led to the War of 1812.

Ve vill sell ze weapons to boz sides and make a fortune! :D:D:D

And from ze profits, ve might even send ze kids care-packets. *nods*

So nice, ve are. :p

every country thinks they are its especially easy to do when you’ve never really been tested (pretty much the western world)

Never really been tested? As in what?

No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.
:rolleyes:

No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.

You also have to remmember that in the first US civil war, that huge body count was achieved without the use of modern weapons, like machine guns, huge bombs, rockets or WMD's. It was achieved with musket rifles and muzzle loading cannon, and the bayonet. A large number of disease deaths too, but for using weapons of the time it was very grousome. True the gatling gun was invented along with the repeater, but those weren't seen until the end of the conflict and didn't see very much action.

You also have to remmember that in the first US civil war, that huge body count was achieved without the use of modern weapons, like machine guns, huge bombs, rockets or WMD's. It was achieved with musket rifles and muzzle loading cannon, and the bayonet. A large number of disease deaths too, but for using weapons of the time it was very grousome. True the gatling gun was invented along with the repeater, but those weren't seen until the end of the conflict and didn't see very much action.

And the number of wounded. Those that lived with their injuries since medicine was oh so wonderful then.....

Agreed. I think World War II was the bloodest in World History. :D
Yes. It's not really a matter of opinion anyway.

:rolleyes:
I know "only 620,000 people" sounds stupid, but in the context of global history, that makes it a small to medium sized war.

Hey, we already had a civil war. It was one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world, and we only had a quarter of the population we have now.

A large-scale invasion has been impossible for hundreds of years? It hasn't even been two hundred years since we were last invaded!

If you're talking about 1812, that's hardly a large-scale invasion. As evidenced by the fact that it was contained entirely within the year 1812.

If you're talking about 1812, that's hardly a large-scale invasion. As evidenced by the fact that it was contained entirely within the year 1812.
Actually, it lasted from 1812 to 1814. You burned down our Capitol and the White House! It was a definite invasion. Francis Scott Key wrote a song about it.

Actually, it lasted from 1812 to 1814. You burned down our Capitol and the White House! It was a definite invasion. Francis Scott Key wrote a song about it.

...To the tune of a british drinking song. I believe 620,000 is the most casualties America has suffered in any war, even over WWII (600,000). So it is the largest war (in terms of casualties) in American history.

More American soldiers died in the Civil War than in almost all other wars we've been in combined.

However, it's very unlikely that there will be another one. America's gotten a lot lazier since then. Half the nation didn't want Bush in control, and what did the angry ones do? There were a few protests, a few musical artists whining, and...um...some whining...

No rebel army showed up to overthrow him, is what I'm saying.

...To the tune of a british drinking song. I believe 620,000 is the most casualties America has suffered in any war, even over WWII (600,000). So it is the largest war (in terms of casualties) in American history.

World War II saw about 400,000 casualties.

I'm Erisian so of course I voted for the pancakes. Whether I was in favor of intervention would depend what side I was on and if I thought the intervention would suport my side. I would never suport occupation and would declare war on any occupying force.

Should foreign troops ever get deployed to America, let the killing begin! We'd go total Red Dawn on them. :)

And I hate the statement that the American Civil War had the most Americans killed. Okay- kind of. But really, the Confederacy was trying to be a seperate country. Why should we count their soldiers as Americans during the Civil War? Politics at the time did dictate that the states were only in rebellion and not a differnt country, but they were fighting for different countries, or at least what they thought of on the Confederate side as a different country.

The rebelled and we had a civil war. Why do both sides get counted as American soldiers? One side had American soldiers. The other side had Confederate soldiers. I find this distinction to be the most annoying thing to me in American History- I don't even know why. It just gets me angry. It should not be thought about the way it is.

World War II saw about 400,000 casualties.

You're right, I was totaling both wounded and killed

Should foreign troops ever get deployed to America, let the killing begin! We'd go total Red Dawn on them. :)

I felt this way at first too, and not just because I loved red dawn :D. I get peoples point about the nukes though, In the event of a civil war, there would be chaos and every militia and organization on which no one was focused could snag a silo, with multiple heads, and become (even with only forty members) more immediatly dangerous than Iran.


The rebelled and we had a civil war. Why do both sides get counted as American soldiers? One side had American soldiers. The other side had Confederate soldiers. I find this distinction to be the most annoying thing to me in American History- I don't even know why. It just gets me angry. It should not be thought about the way it is.

You should study personal accounts of the civil war, the sides were never as different as they wanted to be from each other. This was not a clear cut war where one side was the evil side and one side was the good.

I do not think that the American People would take to kindly to foreign troops on our soil.


we would shit a brick. The pervbial shit would hit the perveribal fan. and things would 'splode.

And I hate the statement that the American Civil War had the most Americans killed. Okay- kind of. But really, the Confederacy was trying to be a seperate country. Why should we count their soldiers as Americans during the Civil War? Politics at the time did dictate that the states were only in rebellion and not a differnt country, but they were fighting for different countries, or at least what they thought of on the Confederate side as a different country.

You should read up on the histories that the generals on both sides had with one another. There are even reports of truces with both sides generals talking to one another. They get counted because they did not succeed in breaking away. They get counted because it occured on our soil. They get counted because they were Americans.

The rebelled and we had a civil war. Why do both sides get counted as American soldiers? One side had American soldiers. The other side had Confederate soldiers. I find this distinction to be the most annoying thing to me in American History- I don't even know why. It just gets me angry. It should not be thought about the way it is.

Why should they not be counted? After all, we are all Americans. Brother against Brother, father against son. The war split whole families. I suggest you study the Civil War more indepth before saying stuff like this.

No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.
That is just military casualties, the total death toll was over 1 million.

That is just military casualties, the total death toll was over 1 million.

Proof please.

Woops.

Meant to say total casualties not death toll... :headbang:


Anyway point is, it was still the second bloodiest war of the 19th century after the Taiping Rebellion in China. The American Civil War is also notable for it's unprecendented carnage on the battlefield and is considered by many historians as the first modern war.

As far as foreign occupation force in the US. It would make Iraq look like a safe place. The death toll on foreign troops would not be acceptable by the force that was deployed.

Only if you were interested in boring things like stability and peacekeeping. In Kimchi fashion, I'd recommend a pacification force with heavy directives in carpet bombing.

Irony is sweet.

No, it wasn't. Only 620,000 people were killed.

Well, the population was a lot smaller back then. It's comparable to WWI for the UK (though not quite as bad), and worse than WWII was for the UK.

Of course it wasn't one of those massacre things, but they haven't happened to any western country for ages.

Woops.

Meant to say total casualties not death toll... :headbang:

We all make mistakes.

The American Civil War is also notable for it's unprecendented carnage on the battlefield and is considered by many historians as the first modern war.

Indeed. It saw the first use of trench warfare, repeating rifles, and so much more. Not to mention the first fight between Ironclad warships that prompted a British Admiral to say that the Royal Navy went from a few hundred ships to two.

The UN is completely useless, corrupt, and a waste of time in any situation. But as a historian, I find the premise of this thread unworkable. The level of civil unrest in the country at the moment is at a bare minimum. No riots. No large protests. No unstable government. No states the feel left out and isolated. There is not even the level of unrest in the country that was felt in the early 1970's. On the contrary, even the most radical dissenters claim to love America. These United States are imposssible to break up. But were there in the distant future some bizzare scenerio where civil war was possible, the UN would be a complete waste of time. They never to anything right anymore.

Only if you were interested in boring things like stability and peacekeeping. In Kimchi fashion, I'd recommend a pacification force with heavy directives in carpet bombing.

Irony is sweet.
Well you cant have an insurgency without a population to support it. So if you kill almost everyone, any resistance of any kind would be impossible. It's a brutal but efficent tactic that people have been using for thousands of years.

This situation will never come up, unless people realize what abortion really is.....;)

This situation will never come up, unless people realize what abortion really is.....;)

Talking points by religio fundo freaks who want to punish women for having sex and restrict them to slavehood status.

At the risk of sounding simplistic:

We fought out and settled the first Civil War by ourselves, if a second one happened, we'd fight and end it ourselves as well.



And may God have mercy on the Canadians if they get in the way





(last statement meant as a joke, no offense intended to those of the Canadian persuasion)