Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Please tell me that those in the know, don't already have a handle on what is comming. I have a distinct (deep in my gut) feeling that multiple (many) jurisdictions are getting the same intel and advice and are prepping in the same manner.... only that this leaked out in AZ.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html

And I do not see any cooincidence in this happening in AZ--that state would be a hot-bead of patriotic resistance.
These people do not fool around in AZ.

I was there over the Thanksgiving holiday and made these observations.

My 2 cents worth.

T
 

·
.
Joined
·
531 Posts
"Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted."

That should probably read, "Paulson THREATENED them with martial law." Which is what he did when they were waffling on the bailout before it got voted through.

And Janet Napolitano...I don't get her. I don't trust her, but I don't get her deal either.

She proposed this thing:
"In 2007, Napolitano was one of the first governors to reach an agreement with DHS to produce hybrid driver’s licenses/border crossing identification cards that can be used as a substitute for US passports at the US-Mexico border. The cards have radio frequency tags and are designed to comply with Real ID requirements. A press release from August 2007 touted the new driver’s licenses as one of the nation’s first to comply with Real ID requirements."

Then balked at the RealID (thankfully) and signed the bill opposing it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I think we all have to resign ourselves to the fact that the fix is in.
All that is left is the implimentation.

But what we have to ask ourselves is this... will be stand on our feet or live on our knees?!


That should probably read, "Paulson THREATENED them with martial law." Which is what he did when they were waffling on the bailout before it got voted through.

I firmly believe that the only reason that the bailouts were pushed through so vigoriously--with so much pressure is that if the banks and thiefs were not given some wriggle space... there would be not election.

The banks would have folded--bank runs, chaos, etc. There would not have been a peaceful atmosphere for the election to take place--it would have been postponed indefinately due to "martial law." They were not kidding when this was told to congress.

The bailout were designed to enusure that there would be a peaceful transition--and to postpone the enevitable meldown to the next guy's watch (whomever it would be). Who is the guy (used to be on MASH) who now says that all the banks are insolvent (nearly all of them).

The bailouts are stop-gap measures, delaying tactics at best.

T

T
 

·
American fearmaker
Joined
·
14,245 Posts
I tend to think that one other factor nobody seems to think about is that if this financial disaster detrimentally effects the rest of the world, our nation could find itself possibly under attack or invaded by a coalition of other nations. Sort of like Saddam and Iraq being tackled by a coalition of allied nations. Saddam got blamed for a bunch of issues and a group of nations went after him and his nation. I can almost see both Canada and Mexico being used as staging areas and hostile forces being sent against us to curb our extraordinary use of natural resources and put an end to our dominance of the international economy. The nations involved would be looking to use a different currency as the new international standard, say the Euro for example, which would enhance the influence of all the nations in Europe or possibly Asia.
 

·
Question Authority!
Joined
·
260 Posts
Welcome to reality! As long as the majority in this country of ours acts like sheep we will continue to be treated as such. Wake up America. If not for yourselves how about the following generations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The local PD is not equipped to deal with ANY civil unrest. Look what happened during the King riots in LA. The LAPD essentially let them go due to lack of people etc.

Now if the National guard or military gets involved, that is a different story. But then you have the problem of people being asked to round up their neighbors which creates a problem in itself.

They would have an even harder time in AZ. Phoenix is near 5 million on the population chart and there are a ridiculous amount of gun owners in that state. I would not be too worried about any of this as it tends to be more bark than bite.

just my 2 cents!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Now if the National guard or military gets involved, that is a different story. But then you have the problem of people being asked to round up their neighbors which creates a problem in itself.

They would have an even harder time in AZ. Phoenix is near 5 million on the population chart and there are a ridiculous amount of gun owners in that state. I would not be too worried about any of this as it tends to be more bark than bite.

My take is that they're being readied to intergrate with military, guard and private security units--and you're very correct about AZ... this would be a hot-bed of resistance, which would be a very good thing.

T
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
our nation could find itself possibly under attack or invaded by a coalition of other nations..
right. a sneak invasion of North America? I hear reynolds wrap crinkling.
how the heck are they going to sneak a fleet in let alone gain a foothold.
nonsense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
There was a book and then the movie " Invasion USA".
The movie was your normal bang, bang , shoot em up, staring Chuck Norris.
The idea behind it could work.
2 landing crafts come ashore at a remote area and their front man has acquired a number of trucks to move all the terrorist all over the country.
Some pose as police and shoot up neighborhoods, so people loose all faith in the cops.
Others go into malls and shoot them up, making people afraid to live their day to day lives. Kind of simplistic but it could work..
 

·
Looking ahead
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
right. a sneak invasion of North America? I hear reynolds wrap crinkling.
how the heck are they going to sneak a fleet in let alone gain a foothold.
nonsense.
I'd have to agree. Nothing like the threat of an invasion to sober the country up. Thats when the gloves come off. It wouldn't be pretty. I'd like to know which countries have the balls to come to the U.S and who exactly would lead them?
 

·
Bail me out
Joined
·
398 Posts
I'd have to agree. Nothing like the threat of an invasion to sober the country up. Thats when the gloves come off. It wouldn't be pretty. I'd like to know which countries have the balls to come to the U.S and who exactly would lead them?
they are all ready here from mexico. 12 milliom strong and all the govt aid they can handle.
 

·
bad grammar deal with it
Joined
·
452 Posts
I found a related article on this topic.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4872/61/

Very interesting part is at the end were the U.S. Army War College admits that in every scenario against U.S. civilians, that the U.S. Army losses!!
2 huge duh statements ive read in less than an hour....wow. ok first off there are only roughly 2.6 million people in the service in 2007 and theres what 300 million people total live in the US how would you figure the army would ever win?
 

·
Question Authority!
Joined
·
260 Posts
Not to bring anyone down on X-mas, but worst case would be a nuclear strike by say maybe North Korea and Iran. Those are the only ones we know have nuclear capabilities. What about the ones that do not make the 6'oclock news? A few properly placed warheads and we all lose. The truth is stranger than fiction!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
right. a sneak invasion of North America? I hear reynolds wrap crinkling.
how the heck are they going to sneak a fleet in let alone gain a foothold.
nonsense.
All Barry has to do is invite the blue hats in to help out in the civil unrest. That would make my decision making a LOT easier, though...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Not to bring anyone down on X-mas, but worst case would be a nuclear strike by say maybe North Korea and Iran. Those are the only ones we know have nuclear capabilities. What about the ones that do not make the 6'oclock news? A few properly placed warheads and we all lose. The truth is stranger than fiction!
There's no evience that either country has even a single nuclear warhead. Both lack rockets with the range to get to the US. From either country, a "dirty" bomb attack is much more likely.

Now our friends in the Pakistani government, on the other hand, have a bunch of nukes, and very close ties with China, which has long range missiles. Pakistan also has a relatively angry populace, an unstable government, worry about the West's closer ties with their #1 rival India and rampant corruption. If a country were going to try to screw the West, Pakistan is the one that could pull it off.

Of course, there's the question of motive. why would any of these nations nuke the US? What would they gain, other than a swift and hugely devastating reponse that would effectively "end" their own government?

I actually think that terrorists would be the most likely to pull off a nuclear attack against the west, and probably "just" with a dirty bomb, which could of course still wreak havor on a county's economy, but likely wouldn't kill too many people. Time to go buy some iodine!

Tom.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Very interesting part is at the end were the U.S. Army War College admits that in every scenario against U.S. civilians, that the U.S. Army losses!!

This made my Christmas--thanks! I'm all warm and fuzzy now.
In fact I'm going to snuggle my Hello Kitty (rifle).

T
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top