ForumsWEPRWould You Fight Back?

51 7851
BamBamNinja
offline
BamBamNinja
332 posts
Nomad

There is probably about a 3.68% chance of this happening, BUT if the government would turn on the people would you be one to rebel?

  • 51 Replies
Green12324
offline
Green12324
4,097 posts
Peasant

The government is already seeming to become less and less interested in the good of the people. I think it depends on how far it goes as to whether or not I would rebel. Presently I couldn't do much, but in the future we'll see.

bigdaddyg
offline
bigdaddyg
372 posts
Nomad

hell ya i would fight back...the only problem with that would be I would get my ass kicked by a marine or some dude from the army..or get shot witch ever one comes first.. but it would be worth it as long as i was 30 and i had kids who could be all like t0 their friends
friend: "my dady was the first african american president"
friend#2: "my dady was a 4 star general"
friend#3: "my dady spent 3 years in prison for standing up to the man"
my kid: "my dady fought the government and got shot...beat that"

Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

If the American people were to revolt the government wouldn't use nukes on its own soil making the US uninhabitable. The navy wouldn't play a pivotal role since it would mostly be fought on land. Artillery, missiles, armor and the air force would however be a difficult obstacle to overcome unless it would be fought with guerrilla tactics or if parts of the military defected to the rebel side then they'd have military assets as well i mean with the military the way it is right now i could definitely see parts of it defecting. Also the national guard and state defense forces which were pretty much originally created for something like this would be on the side of the rebels. It would definitely be a weird situation but i wouldn't stand by when there was a tyrannical government in power. The United States was founded on the principals that the government is only in power because the people allow it and if it stops being in the best interests of the governed it is the right of the people to abolish it.

"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"

TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

We don't need the military to defect to get military assets. All we need is Russia.

Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

We don't need the military to defect to get military assets. All we need is Russia.


what? why would russia ever care they probably would be helping the government anyways
Zega
offline
Zega
6,921 posts
Peasant

I'm pretty sure Swedens government is a bit more stable than Americas, but I don't know.


It is, it is... America's is just freaked up. It's a complete mess!
TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

what? why would russia ever care they probably would be helping the government anyways


Russia doesn't care. They are in for whoever pays the most.
iPC
offline
iPC
146 posts
Nomad

The weird thing is that the majority of people wouldn't fight back, even though they say they will before the disaster strikes. First, if a dictator were smart enough to rise to power in the U.S., he wouldn't be stupid enough to let it be known that a major change has occurred. He would paint himself as the good side. It's obvious that someone is tricking you when you're told that you're being tricked, but he wouldn't let anyone do that. He might not even let it be known that he's ruling.

Think about it: If you knew you were to die with almost no effect if you rebelled, would you do it? If you knew that you would only be killing soldiers who were forced into their service? If the dictator took a blatant approach to his rule, that's what it would be like. It's kind of like the 9/11 plane questions. In theory, everyone on those planes would be heroes because that's what they said they would do. In practice, they aren't.

b3nd0v3r
offline
b3nd0v3r
23 posts
Nomad

You all say you would, by why haven't you yet?

caucasiafro
offline
caucasiafro
338 posts
Nomad

You all say you would, by why haven't you yet?


Becaue people can still say that they would
Aaroniscool
offline
Aaroniscool
254 posts
Nomad

The best way to effectively rebel is not through open warfare, but rather through stealth and assassination of the figurehead. Against a country like the US of A, that's the best way, IMO.

b3nd0v3r
offline
b3nd0v3r
23 posts
Nomad

Becaue people can still say that they would


lol

The best way to effectively rebel is not through open warfare, but rather through stealth and assassination of the figurehead. Against a country like the US of A, that's the best way, IMO.

There are over 20 people, that aren't even allowed in the same room together, ready to replace the President if that happens.
TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

The best way to effectively rebel is not through open warfare, but rather through stealth and assassination of the figurehead. Against a country like the US of A, that's the best way, IMO.


No, guirilla warfare is the way to go. Bombings, ambushes, the like.
Imagirlygirl
offline
Imagirlygirl
91 posts
Nomad

Do you watch Futureweapons? The
USA has an amazing missile defense system. We'd be able to fend off any missile attack. It wouldn't matter. Our defense system is powerful enough that any missile launched would be eradicated when it's still in the higher parts of the atmosphere, unless we're unlucky. Then, it'll just explode a few thousand feet in the air, most likely. It's an exaggeration to say that he turned on us.


Exactly, i think we should only shoot that crap down if it comes into our airspace. Other than that, leave it alone. It does not concern us Waste of a missile (not that there is a shortage...).

i agree with both these people :]

Kyle248
offline
Kyle248
204 posts
Nomad

this is pretty hard....I guess I wouldn't cuz I don't rebel a lot

Showing 31-45 of 51