What Would a Second US Civil War Really Look Like?

Warographics ^ | Simon

[RedMonqey]

There’s a reason doesn’t recruit men over a certain age.
An slow target is an easy target.
Even “in the rear with the gear” folks need to be in good shape cuz of transportation of supplies.
Again, the opposing forces will be having the same issues but they will most likely get aid of anti American countries.
This is probably all moot because it all relied on an American people willing and able to fight for what they believe and frankly, the last few years has shown vs lack of it.
Their lives are still too cushy to risk losing it over an infringement of their rights as long as their Starbucks coffee is available.

[adorno]

first, I did not say you were crazy. I said your response was stupid.

Wow! You really are stupid and dense and crazy.

My example about crazy people was only meant to show how it is that someone who uses the word stupid is not recognizing himself as being that which he accuses others of being; the 'craxy' analogy I offered was only to demonstrate the point of someone who can't recognize his own incapacity.

Thus, you did demonstrate how stupid you do sound.

Wars throughout history have been brutal and painful and people often do not come together afterwards.

Duh!!!

Nobody is arguing those points.

The points were about 'civil wars' and not all civil wars lead to endless wars and/or endless disagreements.

When war leads to endless strife, it just means that the whatever the civil war, was not ended, and whatever remains will be at war forever. meaning that, the civil war was not about a nation unable to get its people to get along; it was about a nation that never should have been a nation with so many gripes and so many people that would never come together. The middle-east, for example, could never be at peace among themselves, because, they have far too many disagreements and far too many differences within their 'tribes' and so many 'leaders' that can never give up their ways of thinking and would prefer to fight it out. Muslims will forever be at war with non-Muslims and within their own religious factions.

The U,.Sl doesn't and never had the same issues as Muslims, and though there were/are many disagreements within the 50 states, whatever comes after a civil war, could be a much stronger nation, with much better laws and fewer disagreements. Civil wars among reasonable people should not end with criminals and thievery and murders and permanent distress. Remember that, my original post was about a new American civil war, and not about wars in general around the world.

If you had stuck to the subject matter at hand, and not gone off on a tangent, you would have have made such a fool of yourself.

[Chickensoup]

The U,.Sl doesn’t and never had the same issues as Muslims, and though there were/are many disagreements within the 50 states, whatever comes after a civil war, could be a much stronger nation, with much better laws and fewer disagreements. Civil wars among reasonable people should not end with criminals and thievery and murders and permanent distress. Remember that, my original post was about a new American civil war, and not about wars in general around the world.

If you had stuck to the subject matter at hand, and not gone off on a tangent, you would have have made such a fool of yourself.

.......

The United States is no longer the country it was. It is breaking into many tribes and losing its ‘reasonable qualities that made the Queensbury rules so useful in war.

The devolution into communism once things settle, amd the 30 to 100 million are killed, will look a lot like North Korea. Or South Africa.

[adorno]

The devolution into communism once things settle, amd the 30 to 100 million are killed, will look a lot like North Korea. Or South Africa.

Your imagination is not letting you think straight. Sure, there are many who imagine communism is better for the U.S., but that is still the minority opinion, and not many in the U.S. really know what communism is or how it works, with the closest experience of what it is coming from Kommunist Kalifornia. A civil war in the U.S. doesn't have to be a hot one, and evolution towards a more perfect union is a kind of civil war.

A civil war could be as simple as states agreeing to split off from the rest and establishing their own 'federal' government(s). Nobody has to be killed, and in reality, that's what a civil split would be like. A hot war is something that all responsible parties would try to avoid.

It's always better for people to go their separate ways than to resolve their difference with violence. Those who want communism could establish their own land(s) governed by communism and the rest can go about doing business as the original founders of the U.S. wished.

[dfwgator]

Your imagination is not letting you think straight. Sure, there are many who imagine communism is better for the U.S., but that is still the minority opinion

And the Bolsheviks were the "minority opinion" in 1917.

[Chickensoup]

A hot war is something that all responsible parties would try to avoid.

.................

We disagree. There is a real desire for a hot war on the part of leftists, and communists world wide. There are trainings happening. Why do you think all these military aged men have been imported?

No one is going to be polite. There is stuff to be taken an people to be killed. Killing has been going on for at least 15 years sub rosa. now it is coming out .

why do you think that we are being told by the PTB that the ideal population for the planet is in the millions not billions.

[adorno]

There is a real desire for a hot war on the part of leftists, and communists world wide.

Nonsense!

The leftists are the cowards of out society and what they prefer to do is protest and petition and accuse others of being radical.

The right-wingers, as the left classifies republicans/conservatives, are the ones doing the training, with many groups all over the U.S. The left would be the sure losers in a hot war, so, they know to avoid it. Which political alliance seeks to disarm the people and which one seeks to defend the right to bear arms? Democrats want to disarm people, while republicans want the right to bear arms; so, it's apparent that, the right with all of their weapons would have an easy fight against the left.

When it comes to military aged men entering the country, who is going to allow them to get armed? And, try to avoid talking about what happens in other countries, because, it'd apples and oranges comparisons. The discussion is still about an American civil war.

[Chickensoup]

The right-wingers, as the left classifies republicans/conservatives, are the ones doing the training, with many groups all over the U.S. The left would be the sure losers in a hot war, so, they know to avoid it. Which political alliance seeks to disarm the people and which one seeks to defend the right to bear arms? Democrats want to disarm people, while republicans want the right to bear arms; so, it’s apparent that, the right with all of their weapons would have an easy fight against the left.

.......................

You spend much time in gun shops in leftist enclaves? I didn’t think so. Filled with leftists. Has been for years.

Vt has the least restrictive gun laws in the nation and it is filled with leftists who run it.

History’s biggest killers in the past century have been leftist governments

[adorno]

History’s biggest killers in the past century have been leftist governments

True, but, you're still looking at what has happened in other countries and not in the U.S. Remember that,it's about an American civil war, so, what you point to is irrelevant in this country.

And, using Vermont as a leftist gun-loving state, might be the exception to the rule, and in general, Vermont does not prove your case. it's the left's enemies (republicans/conservatives) in the country that own most guns and train to most. That leftists own guns is not the issue, but that the right owns the most guns is the issue. The leftists are the ones trying to make it unlawful to own guns, and not the right. Learn the facts, and then, come back with some valid points.

[Chickensoup]

I am not going to try to get you to see differently

However the US is not the country that it was.

You are imho blinded by normalcy bias.

[adorno]

However the US is not the country that it was.

No country remains the same forever, and changes will occur. In a way,that's to be expected, and NORMAL.

The problem is when, people feel that normal is not what they want, and dramatic changes should happen. Dramatic changes cannot occur unless there is a violent revolution or violent civil war. Most people in the U.S. like normalcy, and he U.S. is stable for the most part, because its constitution and bill of rights, and law abiding is expected. Jewish-hate of he moment, still has to be fought and the rules and laws are still in place. It's how the U.S. is still the most stable country in the world, no matter what the antics of the Jew-haters and anti-America haters say and do.

[Chickensoup]

Most people in the U.S. like normalcy, and he U.S. is stable for the most part, because its constitution and bill of rights, and law abiding is expected.

Been in cities both small and large recently?

This is not true.

[adorno]

Been in cities both small and large recently?

This is not true.

Is NYC big enough? That's where I lived half my life, and now I live in a not so small city in Florida.

So, it seems that I have a lot more of the experiences than you regarding what it takes to know what I'm talking about. And, I was in the military, Marine Corps in fact.

Experience-wise, I have a lot more than you can imagine.

[Chickensoup]

You are kidding

NYC a half a lifetime ago is no NYC today. Even the seventies is nothing like now.

City in Florida? The only coastal state that has support for policing and safety from the Governor on down????

Lets see, Worcester, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Chicago, Oakland, Portlands, both Organ and Maine, St Louis, Nashville, Atlanta. Ones I have been in or have had friends and families experience in the last couple of years.

[adorno]

NYC a half a lifetime ago is no NYC today. Even the seventies is nothing like now.

NYC has been radical left from decades ago. That's why I left. Those other cities/states you mentioned, are nothing compared to what NYC was and is.

BTW, I live in Tampa, just in case you were wondering. The mayors of Tampa and St Petersburgh are both democrats, but they're not ultra-leftwingers like in the blue states and blue cities. Most voters in the state are now republicans and the governor is republican and both state houses are republican controlled. So, no mayor in Florida is going to become as radical as the the blue cities in blue states. We still favor our freedoms in this red state. The blue cities you mention are not going to do anything that is even close to rebellion, or they lose everything. They love their left-wing rule, but they love being part of the best country more, which is still a constitutional republic.

It's the overarching rule of law that the U.S. offers, is what keeps the country together, and no blue city or blue state is going to jeopardize losing that.