Civil war 2016?

[Dissent]

New American Civil War coming in 2016? — RT

Well its nice to know the military has a plan to keep us under the heel of oppression no matter what. Guess when the military turns on the people the people will just consider them as enemies and we do what we must.We have seen how well the Amurican empire can battle Guerilla warfare.Afghanistan,Iraq,Vietnam. All lost or losing wars.

 

[The Gadfly]

Already posted in the conspiracy theories forum.

 

[pinqy]

New American Civil War coming in 2016? — RT

Well its nice to know the military has a plan to keep us under the heel of oppression no matter what. Guess when the military turns on the people the people will just consider them as enemies and we do what we must.We have seen how well the Amurican empire can battle Guerilla warfare.Afghanistan,Iraq,Vietnam. All lost or losing wars.

There are also plans for the invasion of Canada. The military has all kinds of scenarios and plans for all kinds of situations. Doesn't signal intent.

 

[waltky]

Granny got her Mossburg 12ga. close by just in case...

UN eyeing Texas invasion? Probably not, but ‘civil war’ fears abound
August 25, 2012 - Lubbock County Judge Tom Head’s suggestion that President Obama, if reelected, will send UN troops to invade Texas caused chuckles (or gasps) across the country. But coming at the height of a polarized presidential race, his comments highlighted fears of political unrest.

Most experts on national and foreign policy would likely agree that Tom Head, the Texas Judge who suggested a win by Obama in November may lead to an invasion of Texas by the United Nations, is wrong. In fact, the UN will not “mess with Texas,” Martin Nesirky, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman, tells Reuters. While Judge Head, an elected judge in Lubbock, Texas, has received flak for his suggestion that the county should raise taxes in order to arm up the local constabulary in case the state should be attacked, his fears about civil unrest aren’t isolated. In fact, they’re widely enough shared that some Americans believe the US government has, in fact, put military contingency plans into effect should the results of the election rile up extremists on the losing side.

Those concerns were fueled earlier this month when Col. Kevin Benson of the US Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., published a theoretical paper in "Small Wars Journal" positing the response of the US government to an extremist militia fueled by tea party sentiments taking control of Darlington, S.C. Thanks to a stubbornly poor economy and philosophical – some would say foundational – high stakes apparent in the presidential election, it’s clear from political blogs, letters to the editor, and word on the street that tensions are running high in the country, and that extends to politics. The recent shooting of a guard at the conservative Family Research Council by a gay rights activist supports that. “The American people are so hot and so angry that it would not take much to set off a raging political fire,” columnist Michael Snyder writes on Hawaii News Daily website.

Although civil unrest is always possible (check out this long Wikipedia list here), there is very little reason to believe any of the doomsday “civil war” scenarios trotted out by people like Judge Head will actually come true. Today’s stakes, though substantial, are not of civil-war caliber. Whether Obama or Romney is elected in November, chances are great that the workings of the Constitution will temper any revolutionary strains, as it has since the end of the Civil War. Take, for example, the tension between the Obama administration and Texas – and, yes, there are a few beefs there, ranging from emergency aid for wildfires to voter ID. Those disagreements, despite the polarization and heated rhetoric, are being worked out in the place the Founders intended: the courts and the electoral system. Houston, Dallas and El Paso remain calm.

MORE