i am surprised at your response
the two wars that this nation has fought were quite different
against the british, they had superior troops and equipment but serious difficulties elsewhere and had to send said troops and equipment across the atlantic
the civil war was another lopsided war where the south had superior fighting spirit but the north had superior numbers and equipment
i will not go into the strategy of the south and why it lost but ultimately it just did not have the numbers either in men or equipment
for a civil war/revolution to succeed, it would have to fight the federal government and they have the superior troops and equipment
please note that bush sent the only troops and equipment (national guard and reserves) to iraq that could have been used in a civil war/revolution by the states
now consider what would be needed against a modern army...if said army could be convinced to fight or perhaps joined the revolution...but things would have to get very bad before said event occurred and the war would be largely guerrilla...or would nukes and weapons of mass destruction or heavy artillery be used...what about the navy and air force, but mainly, what would other nations do
Yes, different times, different situations. However we have seen situations in our own lifetimes when a vastly superior force was fought to a standstill.
But my comment was not to consider whether any move toward secession or revolution would be successful. I was stating that the federal government has been moving steadily toward a point when a large enough faction will decide that there are no peaceful means left to assure continuance of the liberties handed down to us by the founders.
IMO, unless something reverses a decades long trend, it is no longer a question of if, but rather when the critical line is crossed and revolution or civil war begins. And I guarandamntee you, Obama is NOT the "change" that will reverse the trends. He has already made the FISA controversy worse, and installed some hollow-headed bitch in DHS that made a list of political opinions contrary to Obama's policies, and, in substance, calls anyone who opposes Obama's policies right wing extremists while hinting they pose a threat of potential domestic terrorism. I'd be willing to bet you fit more than one of the groups listed. I know I sure as hell do. So I am officially, according to the DHS, a person of risk for being recruited as a domestic terrorist because:
1: I am an experienced combat veteran,
2: I am a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights,
3: oppose legalized abortion for birth control purposes.
4: support a return to a strict definition of contitutional restrictions on federal power
I mean what kind of administration lists groups that oppose their policies and labels them as potential terrorists? Not one based on democratic ideals of personal liberty. Nor one that believes in or supports the 1st Amendment, let alone the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th or 10th.
Anyway, the actions of Onbaama clearly indicate he is NOT about any kind of "change" but rather a consolidation and expansion of unconstitutional federal powers. It will not take too many more before the critical line is crossed.
And yes, there WILL be enough people to make a serious go of removing federal power. The first war was a group of people who grew up without the kinds of personal liberty we take for granted, yet were willing to hazzard a new world to escape tyranny, then fight it when tyranny followed them to the New World.
This time we are talking about a great many people who know what liberties we are supposed to have. A man is more likely to fight to maintain liberty, having experienced it. And don't think it will be significantly difficult to pull much of the military to the side opposing a federal government gone wild.
