# How does one prepare for this as a likely refugee?



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

*This thread is part of the "Coming Civil War" group of threads.
Please see the Primer/Premise thread --> HERE <-- for context and links to other related topics.*

Let's face it, if the worst happens, we might lose our country. What then?
There will be those already planning for this, and there will be those that must swallow their pride and accept it... we may have to emigrate to another town or even another country if you're near the border.

Like wars of the past, a war-torn U.S. would undoubtedly produce refugees if it went on for any significant length of time and cities were literally burning down. Where would these people go? What would be needed to make the trip?
A "bug out" or "go" bag seems obvious. A more robust "INCH"(I'm Never Coming Home) bag would be ideal, but likely impractical for most. What's absolutely necessary for any such bag?
Would a passport be needed? Is yours up to date?
Having one would make border crossings so much easier. You wouldn't have to go through the same "asylum seeker" line as those who were totally unprepared.

Does anyone have distant friends or relatives that would DESPERATELY need this advice?
What can be brought? Do you have routes planned to make the trip? Alternates are a requirement due to the unknown nature of conflict areas. Do you have any contacts in the destination location that can help?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I will be dead by then.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

I would not leave my country. If actual war came, I would push against the enemy as hard and and for as long as I could, and when I fall, let my life's blood refresh the Tree of Liberty.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)




----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

This says it. ^^^^^


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Doubt I’d ever leave. We’d muddle through. We have land animals friends and neighbors. Should we need to leave it will be on our boat. Water maker and plenty of food on board.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

This isn't just a topic for what WE would do.
This is a topic to discuss how people who absolutely will become refugees from their city or country should be ready to deal with that eventuality.


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Feb 27, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> This isn't just a topic for what WE would do.
> This is a topic to discuss how people who absolutely will become refugees from their city or country should be ready to deal with that eventuality.


Could you imagine the vast numbers crossing INTO Mexico?

That wall might not be a good idea after all...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Well, I'm willing to bet that the UN will have re-education camps set up. China keeps expanding theirs.

For me, I'm staying put if at all possible. I do have contingency plans but that would mean leaving a whole lot of stuff behind. Survival and rebuilding stuff.

There is a small group of us although scattered. Only about 5 of us are old folks, the rest are youngins in my book, ranging from early 30's to about mid 40's. We are just waiting to see how this plays out.

If you want to see how they see it, go to deagel dot com. Click on list of countries and a list will pop up. Click on the US. The forecast is from 2017 to 2025. 2017 population listed at 327 million and 2025 is 100 million. They also list military hardware towards the bottom of the page. Look at different countries. China and Russia stay about the same. India increases and the UK drops from 66 million to 15 million.

Then at the top of the page is a link to switch to forcast to 2025. At the bottom is a disclaimer that is really worth reading. @Kauboy I would like you take on this.

Now who is deagel? No one seems to know. A lot smarter people than me have dug into this and they don't find anything. Speculation is that it is a Clowns In Action front. I have no idea but they have been around quite a while. What I do know is that the site is full of military hardware information.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Then at the top of the page is a link to switch to forcast to 2025. At the bottom is a disclaimer that is really worth reading. @Kauboy I would like you take on this.


I think they nail it. I'd like to compare it to their previous disclaimer, so I might hit the internet time machine to pull that version later.
The U.S. civilian population has written off Russia and China as any kind of "fair" partners due to bad history with Russia and China's horrendous human right's problems.
Any strategist could see the writing on the wall as far as their potential for an unholy alliance. They don't have to like each other to share a common interest.
As has always been the case, strength respects strength. The U.S. has been lacking in this department since "the greatest generation" hung up their hats. Nothing close since. We've had weak leaders and internal fights that saw fit to label us as imperialists and nation builders. The result of which was weak-handed reactions that chipped away at our position in the world. We got *some* of that back when Bush pushed us into the Middle East to retaliate for Sept.11th. But the response was so drawn out and soft that it ended up having no effect. If we had blown a new hold in the planet in response, we'd be back on top. Hated, but on top.
The Obama years were a joke.
With Trump, he has no interest in showing our force unless provoked. I don't think our enemies have any reason to provoke us now. They're content to let us whither away under the failures of the past 2-3 decades.
They know our demise is looming, and with the escalation over the last 4 years, they see it coming sooner than expected.

99 million dead by 2025 is possible, but it's gonna take a pretty big event to wipe out 1/3 of the country. An internal civil war won't do it.
Involvement from outsiders could.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> I will be dead by then.


Seconded!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I think they nail it. I'd like to compare it to their previous disclaimer, so I might hit the internet time machine to pull that version later.
> The U.S. civilian population has written off Russia and China as any kind of "fair" partners due to bad history with Russia and China's horrendous human right's problems.
> Any strategist could see the writing on the wall as far as their potential for an unholy alliance. They don't have to like each other to share a common interest.
> As has always been the case, strength respects strength. The U.S. has been lacking in this department since "the greatest generation" hung up their hats. Nothing close since. We've had weak leaders and internal fights that saw fit to label us as imperialists and nation builders. The result of which was weak-handed reactions that chipped away at our position in the world. We got *some* of that back when Bush pushed us into the Middle East to retaliate for Sept.11th. But the response was so drawn out and soft that it ended up having no effect. If we had blown a new hold in the planet in response, we'd be back on top. Hated, but on top.
> ...


The actual forecast states 227 million dead. Yeah I know they said 99 million in the disclaimer.

Outside intervention is a real possibility. The UN has been pushing that fact for a while now, offering to save us. They touted that at Davos and both they and Al Gore went public with it. If they can pull it off here, they can do it worldwide, which seems to be their goal. Add to the fact the Russia now has super sonic missiles. By the time they are detected, they will have reached the intended target.


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

inceptor said:


> The actual forecast states 227 million dead. Yeah I know they said 99 million in the disclaimer.
> 
> Outside intervention is a real possibility. The UN has been pushing that fact for a while now, offering to save us. They touted that at Davos and both they and Al Gore went public with it. If they can pull it off here, they can do it worldwide, which seems to be their goal. Add to the fact the Russia now has super sonic missiles. By the time they are detected, they will have reached the intended target.


An EMP would do it...

Peace,
Michael J.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> The actual forecast states 227 million dead. Yeah I know they said 99 million in the disclaimer.
> 
> Outside intervention is a real possibility. The UN has been pushing that fact for a while now, offering to save us. They touted that at Davos and both they and Al Gore went public with it. If they can pull it off here, they can do it worldwide, which seems to be their goal. Add to the fact the Russia now has super sonic missiles. By the time they are detected, they will have reached the intended target.


Oh, I misinterpreted the chart. The US line being "down 99" was interpreted as dropping 99 million. It looks like that is the expected population forecast.
I don't agree with that at all.
5 years from now, 2/3 of our country is gone?
No, I don't see it. Without a world-ending event, you don't kill off that many people in 5 years and not affect the rest of the globe by roughly the same amount.

In 10 years? Maybe.


----------



## paulag1955 (Dec 15, 2019)

keith9365 said:


> View attachment 108557


"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Yeah.. I read it as down 99 million and even that is not reality.. for now. As Michael said, an EMP would do it but then china and Russia would have corresponding drops from retaliation alone. 

A scenario that was discussed in my family/friends circle is that if.. IF.. the US winds up in a civil war of any type the chicoms, Russians and Iranians would make moves on their regions thinking we are too busy to respond while fighting amongst our selves. Basically WW3 thinking we would not really participate. I think that would be a mistake.

Btw, blue helmets make great targets. Just sayin...

And Kauboy, as to your note about not what WE would do but refugees, I think that 99.9% of us on this forum would never be refugees but would stay and die where we stood while fighting back. True, that might not be realistic but I just don’t see a mass refugee population in the US. One reason is location. Where would you go? Canada? Mexico? I guess, thinking while I type this, the refugee issue is the abandonment of the cities and the move y millions to the country. Brings up thoughts of the book “one second after”.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Oh, I misinterpreted the chart. The US line being "down 99" was interpreted as dropping 99 million. It looks like that is the expected population forecast.
> I don't agree with that at all.
> 5 years from now, 2/3 of our country is gone?
> No, I don't see it. Without a world-ending event, you don't kill off that many people in 5 years and not affect the rest of the globe by roughly the same amount.
> ...


 Wait China will get the next virus right and the numbers will go way up.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

The UN is pushing to enter the fray. They want boots on the ground. There are several governors that I think are ready and willing to invite them. That's the opening for both Russia and China who will be the majority of the blue helmets. Any opposition could and would be as signs of resistance and dealt with accordingly.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Wait China will get the next virus right and the numbers will go way up.


The new virus has already been introduced in China. This is a newer version of the H1N1 and supposed to be stronger.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/world/asia/h1n1-swine-flu-virus-china-pig.html


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> The UN is pushing to enter the fray. They want boots on the ground. There are several governors that I think are ready and willing to invite them. That's the opening for both Russia and China who will be the majority of the blue helmets. Any opposition could and would be as signs of resistance and dealt with accordingly.


Speaking completely out of ignorance here, but I don't think any STATE governor has authority to invite a foreign military onto our soil without FEDERAL authorization.
Is there something in our U.N. agreement that would legally allow this?

Either way, there's a considerable amount of the population that would consider this an invasion.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Speaking completely out of ignorance here, but I don't think any STATE governor has authority to invite a foreign military onto our soil without FEDERAL authorization.
> Is there something in our U.N. agreement that would legally allow this?
> 
> Either way, there's a considerable amount of the population that would consider this an invasion.


 Blue helmets are an at will target at all times.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Speaking completely out of ignorance here, but I don't think any STATE governor has authority to invite a foreign military onto our soil without FEDERAL authorization.
> Is there something in our U.N. agreement that would legally allow this?
> 
> Either way, there's a considerable amount of the population that would consider this an invasion.


Yes they can.



> Pursuant to its "Uniting for Peace" resolution of November 1950 (resolution 377 (V)), *the General Assembly may also take action if the Security Council fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat to, or breach of peace, or an act of aggression.* The Assembly can consider the matter immediately in order to make recommendations to Members for collective measures to maintain, or restore, international peace and security.


Here is the full article from their website.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/peace-and-security/index.html


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Blue helmets are an at will target at all times.


It would be a guerrilla war the likes have never been seen.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

keith9365 said:


> It would be a guerrilla war the likes have never been seen.


 Not that my like means I want it to happen. Just so many do not have a clue what is coming if it gets to that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Yes they can.
> 
> Here is the full article from their website.
> 
> https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/peace-and-security/index.html


I see you took that as a legal question from an international perspective.
International law is void as far as our constitution is concerned, without treaty, and the federal government still controls our borders.
I still do not agree that it would be legal, within the confines of U.S. law, for a governor to request U.N. intervention without federal approval. "Legal" meaning that the federal government would have no authority to oppose it.

So, they *could* ask... the U.N. *could* respond, and the U.S. military *could* react. Along with a few million pissed off citizens...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I see you took that as a legal question from an international perspective.
> International law is void as far as our constitution is concerned, without treaty, and the federal government still controls our borders.
> I still do not agree that it would be legal, within the confines of U.S. law, for a governor to request U.N. intervention without federal approval. "Legal" meaning that the federal government would have no authority to oppose it.
> 
> So, they *could* ask... the U.N. *could* respond, and the U.S. military *could* react. Along with a few million pissed off citizens...


WE signed the damn thing. That is enough to get their foot in the door. Who will be first? Either Cuomo or Newsom.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

inceptor said:


> WE signed the damn thing. That is enough to get their foot in the door. Who will be first? Either Cuomo or Newsom.


As Smitty said, blue helmets are permissible targets. Instantly.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

@Kauboy, the last post I sound annoyed. I figured I should clarify. I'm annoyed because I can see some of the idiots on the left using this to their advantage. That annoys the hell out of me because it doesn't have to happen. I think the UN had this plan in place long before Davos.

4 years of nonstop assault on the conservatives just because she was supposed to win and blew it. It was stated by someone that there was a 16 year plan when barry took office. He did a lot to take us in that direction. She was supposed to continue that until we were ready to ask the UN for assistance. When we go down, others will easily follow. We are their stumbling block. Hence the 4 year assault. They had to come up with a new plan and are ready to implement it. Soros said at Davos 2020 was the end of Trump. No hesitation, just conviction.

Sorry, rant off.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Not that my like means I want it to happen. Just so many do not have a clue what is coming if it gets to that.


I get it. I don't want it to happen either, but I would consider that an invasion by a foreign power to subjugate me and I won't have it.


----------

