It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt

Let me begin by thanking Sadolite for his writing and for bringing this issue to my attention. The debate should be interesting even though I profoundly disagree with most of what my opponent says. I must say that when I first saw this debate I thought that you were joking. And I was hoping that you would actually admit that were joking in the second round. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that's going to happen. ========= Contention 1: An uprising of militant farmers against government troops would be suicidal. ========= Your heart seems to be in the right place, I hope, but with all due respects your arguments are crazy. They are actually beyond crazy in the ordinary sense of the word. They are downright psychotic and even suicidal. If you think that war with the federal government over a policy dispute is a good idea then please pack your bags and head down to San Joaquin Valley to join your brothers in arms. -----> Here is how the scenario you beckon us to would likely play out based upon a historical analysis of other such incidents. The events occur in chronological order. One thousand farmers and citizens gather together with their assault rifles and march to turn the water back on. Upon turning the water back on a government envoy and possibly a sheriff's deputy would go in to order that they put down their weapons and shut the water off immediately. If these militants refused they would immediately be faced with a well trained army of swat soldiers and a crew of snipers that could blow their heads off from 2 miles away. This would eventually end up in a standoff as long as either side refused to take the first shots. The subsequent standoff would probably last a while, perhaps even days. Given that these farmers will be outgunned and outmatched by virtually a thousand to one a very slow slaughter would take place if they refused to lay down their arms. If ordinary swat teams were insufficient to deal with these militants then the government would send in tanks. If tanks didn't do the job then f-16 fighters would swoop in to obliterate anything that's still standing. So, on top of not having any water these farmers will now be dead. And upon completion of this scenario everyone would look back at this massacre in utter disbelief at how pointless it all was. ========= Contention 2: We have enough wars on our hands. ========= I have already said it before and I will say it again. Violence is not the answer to this situation. You would do well to reflect on how Mahatma Gandhi helped defeat the British. [1] Furthermore, you would do well to reflect on how racist and segregated this country was even when you were still a small child. Just imagine what our world would be like if Martin Luther King had led militants to Washington instead of peaceful protestors. [2] Not only is my opponents war with the federal government virtually unwinnable but it is immoral and flagrantly unnecessary. ========= Conclusion ========= I can barely think of a more pointless use of violence than the one my opponent has beckoned us to. The only thing such an outburst of violence would accomplish would be to needlessly waste human life. Ironically, it would also ruin the farmer's chance of having the water turned back on. On the other hand, I have already shown two solutions the farmers could take if they wanted to mediate this situation, neither of which nessceistate bloodshed. (Resolution negated) ======= Sources: ======= [ 1] http://www.mukto-mona.com... [2] http://afroamhistory.about.com...