Will it hit the fan, and why? Opinions?


PDA

megatronrules
February 12, 2003, 06:08 PM
Well thinking about this lately. I think its not if but when. With the world the way it is, I just dont know what to think. What do you guys think? Thanks for you're thoughts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will it hit the fan, and why? Opinions?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
4thHorseman
February 12, 2003, 06:22 PM
Yep.. sooner or latter. I believe we are still recovering from Clintons ineptness and cutbacks in security and foreign affairs. His inability to respond to USS Cole attack was a weakness they took advantage of.
They (the BGs) had plenty of time to position their people. We need more time to root them out like the scum that they are. But we don't have the alotted time to do so.
So, yes.

Boats
February 12, 2003, 06:38 PM
What is amusing to me was what I learned in my ancient history courses in college. The Mesopotamians and the Sumerians often wrote to one another in their respective societies that the world was in decline. They were eventually right of course.

I do not spend much time at all worrying about it. I did take up the hobby of making and shooting the "primitive bow," the idea being that if nothing else, I can now make my own arrows for my modern longbow.

ajacobs
February 12, 2003, 06:45 PM
0

Art Eatman
February 12, 2003, 08:48 PM
I really doubt anything really notable will come about. Economic hard times? Aw, maybe a bunch of office types will learn about calluses.

Something might light off an inner city ghetto, in an LA Riot situation, but that won't affect much of an area.

But any sort of "breakdown" deal? Nah. Not only multitudes of badges enforcing law'n'order, but a heckuva lot of citizens are out here who won't tolerate a bunch of nonsense.

Soccer-mom whining will be the worst of it.

Art

Standing Wolf
February 12, 2003, 08:52 PM
Considering how little we've done to protect our nation and fight World War III, I'm surprised the Islamic terrorist savages haven't struck us again.

MitchSchaft
February 12, 2003, 08:56 PM
I'm surprised the Islamic terrorist savages haven't struck us again.

Me, too. I'm talking a big something, too.

Dave R
February 12, 2003, 09:11 PM
The scario that scares me is several cities hit simultaneously by either nukes, dirty bombs, or a successfull bio/chem attack.

Given that after 9/11 the markets were closed for a week and air travel plummeted for months, (and air travel is still hampered by semi-useless security measures), I worry that a scenario like tha could cause a secondary economic depression.

'Course, that still means only small-scale, local rioting.

The USA is too big & diversified to be permanently injured by the loss of 1 or 2 cities.

I think.

Still Learning
February 12, 2003, 09:34 PM
What Art said.

.45Ruger
February 12, 2003, 09:46 PM
Possibly for a limited time in a limited area. One city may become lawless for days or even weeks but a permanent break down is unlikly, but the Romans probably thought that to.

St. Gunner
February 12, 2003, 10:27 PM
A month ago I would have said "No" but a variety of events in the last week have begun to change my opinion to some degrees. While discussing a poem in a class about revolution I was tasked with answering a question posed by the proff about what incites revolution. The metaphor used in the poem for the decision to revolt is the word "Graves." I gave this answer:"Graves are the point at which people are perched upon the edge, faced with a decision to either suffer death by starvation or massacre at the hands of government or witness their emotional death as a tyrannical government robs them of personal liberty. The graves are the spot at which revolutions arise as people make a decision to end polite political rhetoric and take up arms in outright revolution, or to simply perish physically or emotionally by doing nothing."

Now to most of us, the actual decision is much more complicated than that, in fact most of us ask ourselves daily what is the final line. But I made this statement to a class that is a part of one of the most socialist institutions in this part of the state. I was expecting ridicule, some name calling, or at the very least some arguement. I got none of it, what I did get was a real pondering of what I just said and some comments that dealt directly with some current government actions, mainly the phone taps and fiscal worries. To me when the sheeple begin to open their eyes and realize the current state of the nation and what it is becoming it means several things, but the most important is somebody made a huge error in adjusting the water temperature and the frogs are ready to jump out.

The 2nd incident was today as a customer I was doing some work for who is probably worth several million dollars was expressing his displeasure with current actions in many of the same areas the socialists in class where. But his comments and suggestions are not fit for this board.

When you take the wealthiest portion of the population and some of the poorest and most confused and have them all combined in their grievances and all of them upset, and all of them giving consideration to their options beyond writing letters and making calls. You have a problem and you have a country on the brink of a serious problem.

I think the incident that could set off this wildfire is not another terror attack, people can absorb that, but the heavy hand of government reacting to that incident for the benefit of a small minority who are screaming for more safety and thus giving government a chance to strengthen its position.

I don't see huge riots around here happening, just doesn't seem feasible, but I do see a rise in crime because of economic problems and a citizens tired of waiting on Law Enforcement to solve crimes and taking it upon themselves.

Granted I don't know how most of the socialists who a couple semesters ago thought guns where the most heinous creation of man are planning on fighting for anything, but I guess throughout history they have found a way and means to fight.

ReadyontheRight
February 12, 2003, 10:30 PM
I heard somewhere that the Al Queda events seem to happen in patterns about 18 months apart. Hopefully this was wrong.

M58
February 12, 2003, 10:32 PM
We do not need any of the big cities.

Double Naught Spy
February 12, 2003, 11:10 PM
SHTF is a regular battle cry and one that must come true someday, but it is also a battle cry made for a long time for special or general events that never occurred. Heck, leaders of my childhood church basically had us all believing that the Biblical end of the world was about to happen any day now, citing supposed critical points in the Bible that would occur before such an event happened, and claiming that we had pretty much had all those events occur. Twenty five years later, and still nothing.

Many felt Y2K would be a SHTF event. It wasn't.

These repeated SHTF coming soon battle cries seem to have a lot more to do with trying to figure out new reasons for gun owners to buy more goodies than with actually dealing with said SHTF issues.

At just about any point in our nation's history, there has been real reason to fear that events in the nation or the world were unstable enough that we need to worry about SHTF scenarios. Currently we have some specific events and eventually these will pass and be replaced by some other types of uncertainty.

Bob Locke
February 12, 2003, 11:23 PM
Sometimes I feel that the numbers of people who constantly talk about such scenarios (myself included) drastically reduces the likelihood of something REALLY UGLY ever happening, because there are numerous persons ready, willing, and able to deal with them.

Sort of like the point I made about firearms to a fence-sitting friend of mine about firearms in this nation. There has never been an attempt from within this nation to seize power by force. I believe having an armed populace has been a great deterrent to that, and my friend (an older gentleman with whom I used to work) thought about it for a while (a week or so) and agreed.

geegee
February 12, 2003, 11:46 PM
I think the type of event that will rock our nation is an attack that will replicate what the Israeli's have endured for years. To wit: a single Islamic bomber walks into a Starbucks in Ft Worth...a similar bomber pulls the same duty in a shopping mall in Omaha...another in a church in Erie, PA. In other words, the end of the "mega event attack" like the WTC, and a change to attacking Middle America.

Perhaps when that happens in a place like Los Angeles, and a friend of an actor (or an actor it's own self) is detonated, and that actor is faced with the realization that "Why him/her? He was an anti-war Democrat?", then the psyche of America and the group of bliss ninnies (who really believe in appeasement) will have to come to grips with the threat that faces all the world. geegee

ahadams
February 12, 2003, 11:58 PM
I dunno folks - it's my impression that the attempts at mega-events were and are continuing...remember the terrs are playing primarily to their home team - especially once ground action starts in iraq. One of the things about arabs is that they are *very* *heavily* affected by morale factors. Therefore whoever is pretending to be bin ladin this week (I'm not convinced he's still alive) is going to be more interested in making certain that the palestinians and so forth feel good about their side, through some sort of high publicity target being taken out, without regard to how it might or might not play here.

If I was them I'd go for something relatively easy - especially targetting an urban area that's too politically correct to allow even unofficial profiling: Seattle and S.F. come to mind. I'm sure there are others....

SteelyDan
February 13, 2003, 01:17 AM
I believe that "putting toothpaste back into the tube" is easier than trying to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It's inevitable that someone will get them and use them here. And while I don't think it will bring down our country, I think a systematic attack will cause some serious problems. I just don't know if the bad guys can pull off a systematic attack, but even a limited one will cause us problems. And I'm a bit worried about the next three or four days.

WonderNine
February 13, 2003, 02:08 AM
I had a really scarey nuclear holocaust dream the other night....

Ala Dan
February 13, 2003, 02:11 AM
historically we have begun all battles on the Sabbath.
With the Feburary 14th NATO deadline fast approaching,
don't be suprised if we (the U.S. and its allied forces)
lauch an attack on Iraq on Sunday, Feburary 16th!

As for incident's over on our homeland, I think they will
be sporadic to say the least. Muslims in country might
try to rare-up in big cities; but I don't expect much will
come of it. With the "high alert status" having been in
place for a few days; everyone's preparation has been
boosted. In other words, they now expect the worst
case scenario to unfold. And I believe AMERICANS will
be ready!


Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

Jim March
February 13, 2003, 03:01 AM
My biggest concern is that "the financial elite" of the US (in and out of gov't) thinks the US labor costs are too high, and hence uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Hell, they may even be right. Well they may be doing deliberately exactly what we see: a series of annoying financial mini-meltdowns with a goal of "slowly lowering" standards of living.

If that's what's going on, it would also explain the drive towards gun control, in case people notice and get pissy.

BUT the good news is, we're really winning the RKBA fight. The CCW genie is firmly out of the bottle in 34 states. MN will be added this year, MO is close, etc. And every shall-issue CCW state tends to get better on all other forms of gun control, as the "basic truth" of our position becomes evident.

BerettaNut92
February 13, 2003, 03:39 AM
9/11 is the closest thing we've had to SHTF. Cuban Missile Crisis maybe, Hurrican Andrew, LA Riots and on a local level....

...and 9/11 only served to rally the country, no one was running amok but glued to the TV and buying American flags.

abaddon
February 13, 2003, 03:49 AM
Jim,

could you explain what you mean by the deliberate lowering of the standard of living? I can see why you would see a lowering of it, especially now with the economy as it is, but deliberate? What motives would the "financial elites" have? It seems to me that such elites tend to benefit from a better standard of living.

Jeff

Jim March
February 13, 2003, 05:14 AM
Ah, glad you asked.

It's all about labor costs! In China, you can pay a factory worker less than 50 cents an hour. Often way less. Mexico, it's a bit higher but still miles below the $15/hr or more (often WAY more) typical in the US (esp. when you factor in benefits).

This does tend to radically reduce the economic competitiveness of the US as opposed to other nations. Once you see the world as a giant "economic battleground" between nations, which isn't far off the mark, this difference in living standards and income levels matters. BUT you also want a consumer economy that can afford neat toys, get molded by advertizing, etc. The solution is a system of multiple "classes", low-income workers versus a white-collar middle class versus the rich elite. How do you set that up? Easy. Turn the majority of the public schools to utter crap. Which is well under way.

You think I'm nuts here?

US factory owners have a history of meddling in social structures to reduce labor costs. The classic example: the "Women's Christian Temperance Movement" had been making noises about banning booze as far back as the 1870s but sometime around the end of WW1 (1918) they got a BIG influx of money to promote prohibition in studies, PR, radio ads, a newspaper push (both editorial and advertizing), etc. So where did all that money come from? Simple: they convinced Henry Ford, Carnegie, the rail and steel barrons and other "captains of industry" that eliminating drunkenness would reduce labor costs about 10%, with the savings coming from less "monday morning hangover lateness", fewer on-the-job accidents, etc.

So industry quietly backed prohibition and we know how that turned out.

Whoops. OK, so if meddling like that happens, how else could they meddle?

Fact: the Federal Reserve is a *private* corporation. The shareholders are "captains of industry" (most of 'em, anyways, or major Wall Street players). The reason the US economy is linked to a private mega-bank is that Constutionally, all our money has to be tied directly to gold or silver. Don't believe me? Article 1, section 10:

----------
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
----------

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html

While that wasn't so explicitly a limit on the Feds, the language implied the same thing, as two of the Fed powers were:

----------
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
----------

The word "securities" meant paper script tied to the availability (and exchangability) of "hard money" (gold or silver, or perhaps other stuff too later such as platinum/scandium/uranium or whatever else is objectively valuable).

You know what the word "dollar" really means? It's a measure of weight of gold!

Now go take a $10 "federal reserve note" and try and get it turned into gold or silver. Trust me, it won't happen. Go down to your nearest Fed Reserve office building and try. They'll just look at you funny. The very word "dollar" as used today is false advertizing.

This is the situation because early in the 20th Century Congress realized that a gold/silver-standard currency just wasn't gonna work, it wouldn't allow deficit spending for starters :scrutiny:. So they linked the entire economy to a PRIVATE corporation that wasn't Constitutionally barred from creating less stable currency. No, I'm not kidding. What they should have done was call for a Constitutional Convention and re-wrote the rules but no, heaven forbid, then they'd have had to tell people what the hell they were up to :rolleyes:.

So instead, they've given a private corporation control over the US economy. It has DIRECT control over the entire US economy.

:eek:

I really wish I was making this stuff up, but I'm not.

Now mebbe you see why I'm worried?

CWL
February 13, 2003, 05:33 AM
Nope.

We take our lumps and keep on going.

The USA just has to get used to living with terror within it's own borders for the first time, -Europe, Asia, Middle East deals with it.

We survived the Civil War. That was worse than any exterior threat will ever be because of the damage it caused to the psyche of the American Citizen.

We lived thru the Great Depression -it was worse than now economically.

We lived thru the opening days of WWII -the USA actually though that it might lose, we didn't do too well during the first year, but everyone still pulled together and toughed out the catastrophic losses we suffered in Asia & N. Africa.

The turmoil of the Vietnam War really tore apart the fabric of USA's belief system and families, there were contingency plans for another Civil War.

Calm down, you will never be happy with everything, bad things will continue to happen, but the USA will survive if for the simple fact that it is too big to destroy -and the majority has more tradition of pulling together as a nation than it does of anarchy & individualism.

Double Naught Spy
February 13, 2003, 08:12 AM
I am not convinced all this SHTF discussion has done anything to prevent such business from ever happening, but I do know that it promotes a certain sense of paranoia, much of which has failed to materialize in the past. I also know the gun companies, survival gear folks, etc., play up to these fears and profit greatly. You don't see any advertising lower prices to help Americans get ready for the impending doom that is upon us, right? Nope, they are in it for the $$, and there is nothing wrong with profit, but strangely those companies who deal in all this preparedness stuff don't have any great underground bunkers themselves from which they conduct business. In other words, they really don't expect much to be happening to them. Ironic, no?

peteinct
February 13, 2003, 08:58 AM
Hi everybody, I think that being prepared for things is good. I mean all those boy scouts can't be wrong! I think sometimes we worry about low probability things and don't prepare for the more likely ones. I guess an example would be a guy who carries a gun in his car to protect against being carjacked but doesn't carry jumper cables or a tool set for breakdowns.
I know I will lose electric power at least once this winter. There is a good chance that there willl be a huge blizzard. There is a chance my house could catch fire or I will be in an accident. I could even lose my job. These may not be as bad in absolute terms as a terrorist setting off a bomb somewhere but they are bad nonetheless. The consequences to me are the same if a tree limb knocks out my power or that the power plant got blown up. So we should spend some time getting prepared for garden variety disasters such as storms and fires as well as the more dramatic ones.
I thought that on Y2K something would happen. So sure I used it as an excuse to get a rifle I wanted but for real we stocked up on fuel, food and water. As a general thing I have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors in the house and garage. I even have a CO2 detector. I have extra water always and food sometimes, and kerosine for light and heat if needed. I also have money in the bank in case I lose my job which would be a diaster for me.
The best advice I ever heard was on the Art Bell show before Y2K. The expert said to move to a rural town and to volunteer to help the community. It would be good for its own sake and also to become a part of the community. The expert thought that a group would be survive and prosper where a single person would not.
Pete

treeprof
February 13, 2003, 12:57 PM
In general, I fear the responses of the gov't (more laws and restrictions) and many of my fellow citizens (panic driven mob actions and acquiesence to gov't power grabs) to some event, than I do the direct consequences of said event.

bogie
February 13, 2003, 05:39 PM
I think we've already had attacks besides the WTC attack. These guys are historically low tech (why try to build a cruise missile, when you can have a group of martyrs hijack some?). Imagine, if you will, a dozen sniper teams in several major cities. Imagine multiple car bombs in crowded areas. Imagine truck bombs in built up urban areas - not next to a 10-15 story government building, but next to a 30-40 story office building. That's what is coming.

I don't think that we'll see WMD type stuff - that's too complicated, and will take too much in the way of resources. It is FAR cheaper to buy a dozen cars and rifles, etc...

If you enjoyed reading about "Will it hit the fan, and why? Opinions?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!