Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[Dak]

@Dakryn: you were in a hurry, so you used absolutely ridiculous bullshit? "Oh, I was busy, so I'll just give you some stuff that's counterproductive to my point by making it look like something cooked up by guys with tinfoil hats."

God Forbid you do a little personal research
Yellowstone Caldera
New Madrid

theres a couple from mainstream news sources without references to dreams.

As for internal unrest: right, so if there's a rebellion we could wind up with a police state. On the other hand, my point was that we're moving away from a police state. So basically you're implying by offering that as evidence that we're moving towards a police state that you think a massive civil unrest is likely in the near future.
To which I'd have to say "NO."

Now then, does it make you feel more or less secure when you pick up a newspaper (assuming you do so) and see a picture of a marketplace bombing in Iraq? Less, yeah? It doesn't scare you, you don't piss yourself, but you feel less secure. Now, if those pictures stopped, would it make you feel more or less secure? Needless to say this is mostly subconscious.

You have yet to show any evidence to back this up. Your entire arguement has been opinion.

As far as being able to predict that there WON"T be massive civil unrest in the future that is pretty blindly optimistic considering the wealth of information flow for the contrary.

The whole feeling secure thing based off of Iraq shit is really neither here nor there. I didn't feel any more or less secure after the Mumbai incident, or 7/7, or 9/11 etc. But that is me.

What Americans should be worried about, like the emergence of actual threats from other nations or cataclysmic disasters, always gets laughed off with responses that usually come in some form of:
BUt teh USA always ROXXORS!We R AWSUM!

 

[Death Aflame]

I was just trying to prove that anarchism was a real political movement that had a long history. It is not as V5 suggested just the absence of government as in Somalia. That said it is a political movement I do not agree with or support.

what politics do you support?

 

[cookiecutter]

what politics do you support?

Social Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) although I often like what Social Democrats have to say. If I were to relate it to Canadian politics, I would say the optimal government for me would be a Liberal/NDP coalition.

 

[waif]

God Forbid you do a little personal research
Yellowstone Caldera
New Madrid

theres a couple from mainstream news sources without references to dreams.

Much better.
I like the part where the Yellowstone one erupts and thousands die. Because nobody lives there. Not sure how they figure that the US economy collapses if the eruption is only big enough to kill thousands. Farmers would be fucked, I guess, but I'm pretty sure they were making excessively dire predictions in order to dramatize the show.

Regardless. You remember Hurricane Katrina, yeah? Do you remember the Orwellian police state that sprang up in it's wake? No? Hm, I wonder why that could be...maybe because it didn't happen because natural disasters don't result in police states?

You have yet to show any evidence to back this up. Your entire arguement has been opinion.

As far as being able to predict that there WON"T be massive civil unrest in the future that is pretty blindly optimistic considering the wealth of information flow for the contrary.

The whole feeling secure thing based off of Iraq shit is really neither here nor there. I didn't feel any more or less secure after the Mumbai incident, or 7/7, or 9/11 etc. But that is me.

What Americans should be worried about, like the emergence of actual threats from other nations or cataclysmic disasters, always gets laughed off with responses that usually come in some form of:
BUt teh USA always ROXXORS!We R AWSUM!

[/QUOTE]
Do you even read the stuff you link to? I'm just curious. I'm not reading that Global Trends thing, btw.
Now then. Regardless of whether a threat is real or not, it has the potential to alarm people.
Can you point me to why you think there's gonna be massive civil unrest in the US?
What's 7/7, by the way? I feel kind of insulted because that's my birthday and you're calling it a horrible incident.

 

[Blind Guardian]

It's probably refering to the London attacks.

 

[waif]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7
yeah.
it's cool that they celebrated my birthday.

 

[Dak]

Much better.
I like the part where the Yellowstone one erupts and thousands die. Because nobody lives there. Not sure how they figure that the US economy collapses if the eruption is only big enough to kill thousands. Farmers would be fucked, I guess, but I'm pretty sure they were making excessively dire predictions in order to dramatize the show.

Regardless. You remember Hurricane Katrina, yeah? Do you remember the Orwellian police state that sprang up in it's wake? No? Hm, I wonder why that could be...maybe because it didn't happen because natural disasters don't result in police states.
Do you even read the stuff you link to? I'm just curious. I'm not reading that Global Trends thing, btw.
Now then. Regardless of whether a threat is real or not, it has the potential to alarm people.
Can you point me to why you think there's gonna be massive civil unrest in the US?
What's 7/7, by the way? I feel kind of insulted because that's my birthday and you're calling it a horrible incident.

#1. I have read those, yes. I had the time for those. BTW if you dig a little deeper on Yellowstone, the thousands could easily become tens of thousands plus choking off commerce routes.

#2. Hurricane Katrina did cause a short term police state, localized of course. A natural disaster that affected multiple states could cause it. Again, you are being blindly optimistic.

#3. Since you didn't know what 7/7 was, and you won't read a .pdf from the National Intelligence Council that was linked from all major news sources, why should I keep linking stuff you won't read? Don't question me on what I read,You obviously don't even read the daily headlines.

I really didn't get into this with you hoping to shed light for you personally, since you obviously are happy being blissfully oblivious. I rather hoped someone who gave a shit would do a little personal research on the information "ground" covered to better educate/prepare themselves.

 

[skeptik]

How can you accuse him of being "blindly optimistic" when you are so blatantly being "blindly pessimistic"?

 

[Dak]

Did you read any of the last 3-4 pages? Or the links? It is not blind to have a less than optimistic outlook on the future of at least the US, compared to the last century.

 

[skeptik]

You are assuming that there is going to be a natural disaster, which will spark a police state in the US. That is being blindly pessimistic. Obviously the US will have a massive decline of importance, prosperity, and stature in the world, but to assume that we are going to devolve into a police state has no legitimate basis.

 

[Dak]

The natural disaster scenarios are one thing, the police state is another. While natural disaster =/= police state automatically, I am pointing out the possibility.

The main points are that A. We do have major natural disasters that scientists put as "overdue", and B. the laws are now on the books that weren't there before 9/11 that allow for a police state.

The UN is predicting world food shortages within the next few years as are people like Celente. Food riots could easily cause a police state, and to assume food shortages can't possibly happen here would be optimistic. Obviously as food shortages worsen it will the the big countries like the US/China etc that are hit last, but if there is a shortage we can still be affected.

There are a multitude of variables and possible scenarios, and I am not saying one is more or less likely than the other, but what I am pointing out is there have been no trends towards, or grandiose predictions of a pleasant future for the world in general over the next decade+

 

[skeptik]

You have to at least admit that the possibility of the US devolving into a police state in the foreseeable future is absolutely minimal. If you don't admit this, I'm just going to laugh at you.

 

[waif]

#1. I have read those, yes. I had the time for those. BTW if you dig a little deeper on Yellowstone, the thousands could easily become tens of thousands plus choking off commerce routes.

#2. Hurricane Katrina did cause a short term police state, localized of course. A natural disaster that affected multiple states could cause it. Again, you are being blindly optimistic.

#3. Since you didn't know what 7/7 was, and you won't read a .pdf from the National Intelligence Council that was linked from all major news sources, why should I keep linking stuff you won't read? Don't question me on what I read,You obviously don't even read the daily headlines.

I really didn't get into this with you hoping to shed light for you personally, since you obviously are happy being blissfully oblivious. I rather hoped someone who gave a shit would do a little personal research on the information "ground" covered to better educate/prepare themselves.

The natural disaster scenarios are one thing, the police state is another. While natural disaster =/= police state automatically, I am pointing out the possibility.

The main points are that A. We do have major natural disasters that scientists put as "overdue", and B. the laws are now on the books that weren't there before 9/11 that allow for a police state.

The UN is predicting world food shortages within the next few years as are people like Celente. Food riots could easily cause a police state, and to assume food shortages can't possibly happen here would be optimistic. Obviously as food shortages worsen it will the the big countries like the US/China etc that are hit last, but if there is a shortage we can still be affected.

There are a multitude of variables and possible scenarios, and I am not saying one is more or less likely than the other, but what I am pointing out is there have been no trends towards, or grandiose predictions of a pleasant future for the world in general over the next decade+

I'm not gonna bother refuting the individual points here because I see a larger flaw: All you're arguing is that a police state is possible, even if only remotely so. Your original statement was that we were moving towards one and I challenged you on that. All this evidence just suggests the theoretical possibility of a police state in the relatively near future. I don't see any indication that we're actually moving towards one.

Needless to say it remains to be seen whether or not Obama replacing Bush will be a gamechanger.

 

[False Joe]

God Forbid you do a little personal research

Yeah, that's how arguments work.
"Here's my point. GO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF WHY ITS TRUE"

 

[Death Aflame]

While I think any accusations of the US being a police state in the literal meaning of the word are off base. It must be said that on a metaphorical level, the analogy helps to understand why domestic freedoms are slowly eroding in this post 911 context.

Noam Chomsky explains it better than I do:



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHgVJeBfVI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Dak]

You have to at least admit that the possibility of the US devolving into a police state in the foreseeable future is absolutely minimal. If you don't admit this, I'm just going to laugh at you.

I don't see any indication that we're actually moving towards one.

So what counts as "moving towards" a police state? I am pointing out the legal framework has been set up and now the logistics are being set up. That is called "moving towards".
What it sounds like to me is that what you mean by "moving towards" a police state means actually having a police state.

 

[waif]

I like how you call the small potential for an event which has a small chance of resulting in a police state as "logistics"

 

[Dak]

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

It shouldn't be happening regardless of how slim the chances may be. There shouldn't be military involvement in domestic affairs. Period. We have other agencies for that. We have, or had anyway, laws against this.

 

[TheVaine]

Predicting is absolutely pointless, outside of boosting one's own ego, unless you're actually going to do something for/about/against your predictions.

Because even if you're right, all you did was sit on your ass and let it happen; criticizing it. Who cares how many facts and shit you can conjure up to prove your point, if you're not going to do something to help it?

 

[Dak]

What would you do if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was headed for you?