I'd expect more armed resistance in the US than in Europe, simply because more people are armed. Europe would probably see a lot of rioting, maybe some stuff getting blown up but not much co-ordinated resistance.

What would they be fighting for? "Change", I bet. Change of Government, more precisely, people would push extremely hard to force their old way of life back in to place.

First let's get the terminology somewhere close to correct. I see a lot of terms being used interchangeably in ways that aren't accurate.

Terrorism, insurgency, insurrection, and civil war are different things entirely. Key distinctions: fraction of the population engaged, objective/goal, and combatant or noncombatant status of intended targets.

Terrorism: Waged by a small minority of a relevant population, though it may have larger popular support for its cause. Objective is to coerce a government into granting specific concessions. Means are the use of force specifically targeted against noncombatants.

Insurgency: Waged by a slightly larger minority, to at most a small plurality. Objective is to produce a change of government, or to eject an occupying power. Means are the use of force specifically targeted against the combatants who represent the government in question.

Insurrection or armed revolution: Waged by a sizeable plurality or even a majority. Objective is to remove the existing government of their territory from power entirely, setting the stage for creation of a new government. Means are the use of force primariy against combatants of the existing government.

Civil war: Waged by a moderate to large plurality, or even a majority. Objective is to disempower or displace another constituency within its own society, or to emplace its own constituency in a position of greater power. Means are the use of force against the opposing constituency, including both combatants and noncombatants.

---

What I hear a lot of folks here describing as a scenario, should really be referred to as civil war.

---

How much longer will we see articles from Peak Oil ignorant (or is that denialist?) writers beating around the bush about the energy issue? :sigh: (and when will there be a "sigh" emontion?)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... get15.html

Now BabyPeanut - you don't really want the truth to come out. The crash in the economy would be inconvenient at best - for all of us.

There have lately been editorials in the NY Times talking about the "geo-green" perspective ("geopolitical green"), that we should go for energy independence as a matter of national security. Obvious common sense, has been since Jimmy Carter first started talking about the issue.

I've also seen a self-described conservative blogger calling for the same, and wondering whether the right will embrace conservation before the left embraces energy production.

U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves -Soviet Intelligence Chief
image Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company

On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States
is trying to establish control over the world's richest oil reserves,
Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service,
who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting
company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper.
Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied
Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their "democratic order."

U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves — Soviet Intelligence Chief

[quote]On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States is trying to establish control over the world’s richest oil reserves, Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper.

Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their “democratic orderâ€

A bit slow isn’t he? I guess that’s why he is in the intelligence

[URL=http://josephbosco.com/shebarshin.html]THE BEAR IN WINTER:
The Last Chairman of the KGB Spymaster, General Leonid Shebarshin[/URL]
General Leonid Shebarshin ran the agents that ran Aldrich Ames and
Robert Philip Hanssen. He read Presidents Reagan's and Bush's CIA
briefings almost simultaneously with the American Commanders-In-Chief.
He is the man every spy on all sides respectedand feared as a
"pro's pro," and a "soldier's soldier."
General Shebarshin, officially "retired" from service, remains a man
of legendary status among his peers, many of whom he employs in his
private security company (which is almost a "shadow KGB"). He is an
unrepentant Communist who still believes in the spirit of Marxism and
class struggle. In word or deed, he is not a "defector," which is the only
category of former KGB officers the West has heard from over the past
decade.

Source: Joseph Bosco Joseph Bosco is an author and journalist who is currently a Visiting Professor of Literature at Xiamen University, P.R. China.

Tell us something we don't know.

E.g. has this retd. General represented Putin in the past (by floating possibly controvertial plans or issuing proclamations like this), or is he acting privately/on retainer via his security business, representing some other interests? Or is he a public spirited citizen of the world calling it like he see's it?

I can't see why the ruskies, or anyone with a real seat at the table, would blow the gaff on our elites (by drawing attention to resource depletion crisis), to do so would have to reduce own options, assuming there is still room to maneuver. Unless they're willing to risk it cos neocons too nutty/greedy to work with, or time is short.

You better ask Joseph Bosco, the author
mailto:joseph@josephbosco.com

MarioPro

Hmm, they must be taking notes from 1984.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism

By Cynthia Banham
Defence Reporter

04/27/05 "SMH" - - The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fuelled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfighting, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ..."

The brigadier said populations were being cut off from their traditional roots, giving them "aspirations that cannot be immediately met", and fuelling a search for identity.

Terrorists were exploiting local issues - such as ethnic wars - to pursue global ends. From a military point of view, the job was now one of counter-insurgency, he said.

As a result, Australia's future soldiers would fight increasingly close to populations, with the enemy "continuing to retreat into complex terrain".

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.

The war of the future would be "out of human control". There was "no alternative" but to engage the population and "convince them of your rightness".

"Our proximity to populations enables us to influence and control the populations, [it] enables us to dominate the environment, generate intelligence and eventually bring the conflict to a resolution," the brigadier told the conference last week.

To fight such a war, a new kind of soldier was needed - one not only proficient in the latest technologies, but who had been educated in "cultural understanding" and sensitivity.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behaviour and allegiances of human population groups".

He said he found it interesting that "if you take out violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

Fair Use--Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.

Just one problem with this k_semler which is that the American Military is under civilian control at this time and not engaged in politics. Right? So a disgruntled British officer ought to have clear evidence of malfeasance or shut up. If the Am Mil ever takes authority in a crisis in close coordination with some quasi-civilian black budget agency then these days are going to be gone forever. But it bears repeating: look at your calendar, its 2005, ok? The Am Mil is the tool of the Executive Branch US Gov. A tool of blunt weight and sharp steel.

Umm, that was written by an Australlian paper. The closest to 1984 I would draw the war to is in the mini-book "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchial Collectivism" written by the character Emmanual Goldstien, which later just turned out to be a fabrication by Minitrue. Specifically Chapter 3 of this mini-book. That is about as close to 1984 that I could compare this war to. (See page 185 of George Orwell's 1984)