Doomsday on history channel

[suntzu]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Alex - we'll have three choices, stay, head to Canada, or go to Mexico. Those will be the quickest ways out....I wonder what Mexico would do with a sudden influx of US refugees instead of the other way around?

If a person chooses Mexico--they have to consider-they will leave one war zone to go to another--so what is the use--unless you consider fleeing into the jungle to live? Plus you will be disarmed when you cross the border and left relatively defenseless to the automatic weapons the drug cartels and Mexican military and police use--the Mexicans don't allow firearm ownership like America does.

If you stay--you would face a possible guerrilla war that would make Afghanistan and Vietnam seem like a cake walk to those who would try to occupy us, OR to those among our own countrymen/or visitors who would try to take advantage of a major catastrophe in order to further some private/political agenda .

If you go to Canada--you'll be disarmed, and eventually any major nationwide destabilization which occurred here would spread across the border into Canada, so you could not escape unless you fled into the mountains--or to Alaska, but it would eventually reach even there.

of course if enough Armed Americans flee to Mexico at the same time, we would overwhelm their boarder security really fast & the Mexican guards could be killed off really fast, by the Tactical crowd - heck we got more Assault weapons that then do.

true enough. However what the average American has is merely a semi-auto version of the true military assault rifle--but in such conditions as utter chaos in this country following on the heels of the type of doomsday scenario discussed on television, or in the event of a military occupation--obtaining the actual rifles themselves wouldn't be that difficult.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Alex - we'll have three choices, stay, head to Canada, or go to Mexico. Those will be the quickest ways out....I wonder what Mexico would do with a sudden influx of US refugees instead of the other way around?

If a person chooses Mexico--they have to consider-they will leave one war zone to go to another--so what is the use--unless you consider fleeing into the jungle to live? Plus you will be disarmed when you cross the border and left relatively defenseless to the automatic weapons the drug cartels and Mexican military and police use--the Mexicans don't allow firearm ownership like America does.

If you stay--you would face a possible guerrilla war that would make Afghanistan and Vietnam seem like a cake walk to those who would try to occupy us, OR to those among our own countrymen/or visitors who would try to take advantage of a major catastrophe in order to further some private/political agenda .

If you go to Canada--you'll be disarmed, and eventually any major nationwide destabilization which occurred here would spread across the border into Canada, so you could not escape unless you fled into the mountains--or to Alaska, but it would eventually reach even there.

of course if enough Armed Americans flee to Mexico at the same time, we would overwhelm their boarder security really fast & the Mexican guards could be killed off really fast, by the Tactical crowd - heck we got more Assault weapons that then do.

true enough. However what the average American has is merely a semi-auto version of the true military assault rifle--but in such conditions as utter chaos in this country following on the heels of the type of doomsday scenario discussed on television, or in the event of a military occupation--obtaining the actual rifles themselves wouldn't be that difficult.

The mexican military is poorly trained & only averagely equipped , an assault from a large force of well armed Americans would utterly crush the withering resistance of the Mexican military with in a day or 2.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Alex - we'll have three choices, stay, head to Canada, or go to Mexico. Those will be the quickest ways out....I wonder what Mexico would do with a sudden influx of US refugees instead of the other way around?

If a person chooses Mexico--they have to consider-they will leave one war zone to go to another--so what is the use--unless you consider fleeing into the jungle to live? Plus you will be disarmed when you cross the border and left relatively defenseless to the automatic weapons the drug cartels and Mexican military and police use--the Mexicans don't allow firearm ownership like America does.

If you stay--you would face a possible guerrilla war that would make Afghanistan and Vietnam seem like a cake walk to those who would try to occupy us, OR to those among our own countrymen/or visitors who would try to take advantage of a major catastrophe in order to further some private/political agenda .

If you go to Canada--you'll be disarmed, and eventually any major nationwide destabilization which occurred here would spread across the border into Canada, so you could not escape unless you fled into the mountains--or to Alaska, but it would eventually reach even there.

of course if enough Armed Americans flee to Mexico at the same time, we would overwhelm their boarder security really fast & the Mexican guards could be killed off really fast, by the Tactical crowd - heck we got more Assault weapons that then do.

true enough. However what the average American has is merely a semi-auto version of the true military assault rifle--but in such conditions as utter chaos in this country following on the heels of the type of doomsday scenario discussed on television, or in the event of a military occupation--obtaining the actual rifles themselves wouldn't be that difficult.

The mexican military is poorly trained & only averagely equipped , an assault from a large force of well armed Americans would utterly crush the withering resistance of the Mexican military with in a day or 2.

To do this--the large force of armed Americans would have to take the weapons they came across and use them--heavy guns and so on--and you could not dig in--you would have to be like Patton when he said that "I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a __________ thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's _______. We are going to twist his ______and kick the living ____ out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy."

Meaning--if you stopped the attack for any reason other than to accept a full cease fire and surrender--you would most definitely give them time to recover and counterattack.

You also have to consider the possibility that normal, every day Mexican citizens might turn on you and join the military fight against you--and the possibility that the cartels would more than likely turn on any invading American force...A guerrilla war in Mexico would be a near certainty.

24-48 hours could give you some major footholds in the country--but you could not force the surrender of the Mexican military in that time frame.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

The mexican military is poorly trained & only averagely equipped , an assault from a large force of well armed Americans would utterly crush the withering resistance of the Mexican military with in a day or 2.

Please consider the many American expatriates living in Mexico and south of the border in general.

There are easily a dozen from my HS class alone in Mexico, expatriates for one reason or another, and more in South America.

G LOC K34 has a particularly narrow and parochial view of the world.

Look to the meaning of 'withering' as my disdain for G LOC K34 is withering.

 

[cloudcroft]

imported post

Quote: "The mexican military is poorly trained & only averagely equipped , an assault from a large force of well armed Americans would utterly crush the withering resistance of the Mexican military with in a day or 2." -- Glock34


It would take a good while longer than "2 days," but yeah, it would be a repeat -- except on a smaller scale -- of when we were down there in 1846-48. No real challenge whatsoever...and think of all the automatic weapons, supplies and vehiclesthat would be taken from them (getting our "foreign aid" back from those corrupt people would be a bonus). The Mexican military -- and the sorry Aztecs before that -- has neverbeen an effective fighting force. They still aren't.

Forget the Mexicophile, so-called "Americans" living down there...they're much more Mexicansthan Americans, so treat them accordingly, and don't count on any help from that quarter. Consider them more akin to the "San Patricio Battalion" (of the Mexican War) and you'd be more correct.

-- John D.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

The Mexican military -- and the sorry Aztecs before that -- has neverbeen an effective fighting force. They still aren't.

Really? The Aztecs were defeated by the Spaniards not because the Spaniards were a more effective force--the Spaniards under Cortez fled before the Aztecs and only with indigenous help were they able to defeat the Aztecs militarily and then impose the inquisition on anyone interested in old Aztec ways.

As for whether the Mexicans are an effective fighting force or not at this point--it is my opinion that any people can quickly learn to be an effective force given the proper motivation....For example--people in this country who have not served in the military, but have only hunted or went to the range or carry guns for self-defense/deterrence--could quickly adapt those same skills to conducting unconventional warfare if they were given the right motivation to do so.

 

[cloudcroft]

imported post

Yeah, really...or I wouldn't have said so.

-- John D.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

The mexican military is poorly trained & only averagely equipped , an assault from a large force of well armed Americans would utterly crush the withering resistance of the Mexican military with in a day or 2.

Please consider the many American expatriates living in Mexico and south of the border in general.

There are easily a dozen from my HS class alone in Mexico, expatriates for one reason or another, and more in South America.

G LOC K34 has a particularly narrow and parochial view of the world.

Look to the meaning of 'withering' as my disdain for G LOC K34 is withering.

Everyone please consider the source of the above reply to my post. 10 Thousand Mexican Military & maybe a thousand drug dealers would not stop the crush of people storming the southern boarder. 24-48 hours that's a very generous estimate , I think it would be a done deal after maybe 3 -4 hours () cars, trucks, and lot's of Armed foot soldiers( I mean civilians ) Imagine Human waves or remember how the advancing Russians swept the germans aside on the way to berlin. that would be nothing compared to this.

 

[okboomer]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

true enough. However what the average American has is merely a semi-auto version of the true military assault rifle--but in such conditions as utter chaos in this country following on the heels of the type of doomsday scenario discussed on television, or in the event of a military occupation--obtaining the actual rifles themselves wouldn't be that difficult.

And public libraries full of how-to books, machinist businesses in most towns, reloaders spread out across the country, Armories acorss the landscape, the bulk of the American Armed Forces still on home soil, plenty of know-how and ingenuity.

The world's best trained sharpshooter resource ... hunters with Remington 700's can still reach out and touch someone ...

Have a little faith, American's still have backbones ... even if it gets lost in the effort to bend over backwards to protect delicate sensibilities!

For you folks on the east coast, if you can't get to where you want, turn west on I-40, take exit 108 N 20+ past OKC and call me when you get to Watonga and I'll guide you in the last few miles ... plenty of room and resources out here, centrally located, and relatively protected from most natural disasters and epidemics Your password is 'boomer' :lol:

On the grid or off the grid, most of our utility services out here will continue to function unless specifically targeted by a direct attack ... doubtful if it would succeed.

Water is artesian, wind tower farms to the north ... sitting on top of natural gas that powers the rest of the state ... family getting royalties off of that.

How many of you saw the nature of some of the folks that stayed during Katrina and thought,"They're just staying to loot after the hurricane goes through"? Of course, I always wondered about the elected officials going to Las Vegas after they told FEMA, "We have it under control and don't need your help." And then the fools voted that fool of a Mayor back in ... lord have mercy!

Ah, well, it's their right to choose to bury their heads in the sand, as it's my right to think they are fools.

 

[cloudcroft]

imported post

The same sort of people who reelected that bum Mayor Marion Barry in Washington, DC. More fools.

And what decent citizen wouldwant to be THERE during some period of disaster as the "locals" come out of the woodwork to roam, loot and plunder (as is happening in Haiti now, yet liberal news sources hardly mentions that "disturbing" news or underplays it)? And as in Haiti, you see the samesort of "entitlement" mentality as the roaming gangs with machetes are "angry" help is not coming in fast enough. So "it's okay" now to terrorize people and take what you want...that's"justified" now because people -- who don't even know you or have ANY legal or even personal responsibility to help, but are doing so because they are decent people -- aren't sending you aid fast enough.

Does that sound like the Katrina trash talking? Sure does.

Who OWES anyone anything in this world? What about personal responsibility, self-reliance and the good old "rugged individualism" of the Teddy Roosevelt era? Hard to find today.

Ignorancecan be fixed with education...stupid/stubborn/hard-headedness --or being just plain spiteful to reelect some POS for mayor because "he was framed" by "racists" -- well, you just can't fix that...you just have to leave. To hell with them.

-- John D.

 

[okboomer]

imported post

In the famous words of Ron A.K.A. TaterSalad White, "You can't fix stupid." :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

okboomer wrote:

In the famous words of Ron A.K.A. TaterSalad White, "You can't fix stupid." :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

True, but according to Bill Engval you CAN hang a sign on it.:lol:

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

All this fantasizing about killing Mexicans and torturing blue helmets.

In the event something depopulates the US as depicted on the History Channel half of you won't survive the initial event, and those that do will be unorganized. Your main priority will be survival of yourself and your family.

The days of trash-talking on the internet will be a distant memory.

I hold no illusions about the outcome ofa real catastrophe. "America 2.0" will most likely be a dictatorship. Possibly several regional dictatorships.

The best you can hope for is that one of ther regions will surface as a reasonably free place to live, that you are permitted to settle there, and that the other new states don't have the means to conquer it.

 

[bigdaddy1]

imported post

I know, why dont we build a big dome. That way we can protect ourselves from the marauding hordes. We can call it something like THUNDER DOME.

If and when this biblical event happens it will be global. If there are any survivors they will all perish soon enough. The many nuclear power plants around the planet will melt down with out the personnel to care for these powder kegs, contaminating pretty much every square inch of our world.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

All this fantasizing about killing Mexicans and torturing blue helmets.

In the event something depopulates the US as depicted on the History Channel half of you won't survive the initial event, and those that do will be unorganized. Your main priority will be survival of yourself and your family.

The days of trash-talking on the internet will be a distant memory.

I hold no illusions about the outcome ofa real catastrophe. "America 2.0" will most likely be a dictatorship. Possibly several regional dictatorships.

The best you can hope for is that one of ther regions will surface as a reasonably free place to live, that you are permitted to settle there, and that the other new states don't have the means to conquer it.

oh, you also watched Jericho....The USA broken up into regional governments, a town banding together, regional conflicts being fought over salt , cattle & land

 

[since9]

imported post

In his address to the NRA's 2009 convention in Arizona, John Stossel said a number of very insightful things concerning fearmongering as it relates to government power-grabbing.

Watch: http://home.nra.org/#/home

PS: You'll have to wait for the video to roll around.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

oh, you also watched Jericho....The USA broken up into regional governments, a town banding together, regional conflicts being fought over salt , cattle & land

Actually, no, I've never seen that show, didn't even really know what is was about.

The ideaof the US breaking up into smaller nations is not new. It's been around since, well, since before the Civil War, of course. But since the end of WWII it's an idea that has shown up in a lot of speculative fiction and science fiction, and it's also been predicted by many historians and other observers as a real possibility under certain conditions.

And of course the USSR provided us with an example of what it might look like, even without a major catastrophe.

So it sounds more like the writers of Jericho were reading whatever I've been reading.

 

[since9]

imported post

Many areas of the country appear to be primed to segregate themselves, if not from the Union, then at least from the state to which they're currently attached. Areas which come to mind include the Inland Northwest and Northern California (I've lived in both).

However, how close those areas really are to segregation depends on who you talk to. The radicals would have you believe it's tomorrow, while the conservatives would give you blank stares as they wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Seriously - most of these efforts are spearheaded by small, grass-roots minorities. If you add the numbers up, they don't add up.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

oh, you also watched Jericho....The USA broken up into regional governments, a town banding together, regional conflicts being fought over salt , cattle & land

Actually, no, I've never seen that show, didn't even really know what is was about.

The ideaof the US breaking up into smaller nations is not new. It's been around since, well, since before the Civil War, of course. But since the end of WWII it's an idea that has shown up in a lot of speculative fiction and science fiction, and it's also been predicted by many historians and other observers as a real possibility under certain conditions.

And of course the USSR provided us with an example of what it might look like, even without a major catastrophe.

So it sounds more like the writers of Jericho were reading whatever I've been reading.

watch Jericho , you will like it.