Posted on 10/22/2007 6:40:16 PM PDT by dufekin
(I posted this back in November of 2006, but it remains relevant):
I believe that if we are attacked on that level, we are more likely to face a military takeover of the government, than a civil war per se.
Consider sometime in the future, with a democratic president (you-know-who, perhaps the next John Kerry, or another Dhimmi Carter), and a democratically-controlled Congress.
Consider that the Iranians/Pakistanis/terrrorists/whoever get lucky by smuggling into the United States 3 or 4 nukes and succeed in blowing out the core of several cities (need not even be the #1 and #2 targets, which of course are Manhattan and D.C.). But also consider that - in the immediate aftermath and chaos - it may be difficult-to-impossible to pin the blame on any specific nation.
What would the official [Democratic] U.S. Government "response" _be_ from a democratic regime?
You would certainly see martial law in the ground zero areas, and perhaps extending even statewide and into the surrounding states.
But I seriously doubt we would see the Democrats take off the gloves and sharpen the knives for war. Their inherent weakness and inability to act would become glaringly apparent as the days progressed.
I would even expect there to be official Democratic statements of "conciliation" towards the Muslim world, that America might begin to address and accomodate their "grievances".
Under such pressure, I believe the leadership of the armed forces might begin talking among themselves about the need for some kind of "action" to propel the nation towards self-defense (of which the Democrats seem to know nothing).
And I also believe that "the Right" - knowing that the Democrats will never defend the United States and engage the forces of Islam full-center - will accede to a military coup under the pressure of the times.
It may be seen as an act of desparation by those of us who are not willing to "submit" in this struggle - but given the record of the Democrats, it may also be seen as the only logical course of action that will permit the nation to recover from the attack, counter-attack, and move forward in the face of paralysis and inaction by those who control the government.
And I must truthfully say that, under such a scenario (hopefully I'll be long gone before the Islamic world develops such capabilities), I would welcome it as an alternative to Democratic surrender.
Off-the-wall, I suppose, but to me, this seems more likely than "civil war", at least at first.
In a civil war, two (or more) sides take up arms and fight against each other.
In our times, the Democratic side is unwilling to fight even with the most powerful military force on earth willing to stand behind them. I don't see "man-in-the-street" liberals actually "fighting" against anyone. They are much more willing to run up the white flag than the American one!
- John
Science, technology, education, and for that matter capitalism and democracy, are all essentially amoral. They are ways of doing things more efficiently and don't in themselves have much to say about the rightness or wrongness of what is done with them.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. To bring ethics into science, other than things involving the scientific process itself such as falsifying data, you have to import your moral judgment from some source outside science.
The Nazi scientists performing horrific medical experiments on children in the camps may have done excellent scientific work and derived useful knowledge from it. You cannot, from science alone, extract any logical reason why such experiments were wrong.
They don’t carry Homage to Catalonia in my local library system. Just 1984 and Animal Farm. Pitiful.
Wasn't defending it, simply observing that the invalidation of natural law - usually pursuant to trivialities - has awful consequences.
In my opinion, we have come to the prewar stage where only active avoidance will serve.
Prior to the first one, a majority did not want war, but if their words or deeds in which they believed so deeply resulted in war, they were either OK with that, or indifferent.
Right now, words are being deployed which amount to a call to arms, Pete Stark's rant in the House being a recent example.
People are much too careless with civil war on the horizon, IMO.
If the factions do not care about avoiding a war as much as they care about the certainty that only they are righteous and fit to rule, war is what we are going to get.
Agreed, the left is in full "Lord of the Flies" mode. It's worth noting, too, that the Democrats' recapture of a majority in Congress has not halted this trend. Quite the opposite, in fact - they've grown ever more shrill. A few election cycles ago, I worried that a Democrat victory would bring about an insufferable leftist gloat-fest; now I think there's something considerably darker in the offing.
Somebody in lurk mode sent me a link to an earlier use of Cold Civil War, from 2001. I guess there’s not much new under the sun.
The Cold Civil War
by Michael Moriarty, Actor and Columnist
August 8, 2001
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2001/moriarty/qtr3/0808.htm
Hillary as President, though, would be a whole different kettle of Clintons.
She craves power -- not just its trappings, but the power to rule and make others bend to her will.
Plus, she's got plans.
In particular, the ongoing connection between her and the ChiComms is very disturbing.
Interesting; and interesting to note that the Clintoons are very cozy with the Chinese, if you catch my drift. I’ve long pondered the question of whether or not it might be worse for us if the Dems lose in ‘08, particularly if by a slender margin? By that I mean that I’m concerned we’ll see an outbreak of civil disorder in the form of mass killings particularly of whites which is why we’ve purchased property far from any large city. We can’t help but notice that the gov’t and particularly a Democrat lead gov’t wouldn’t break it’s neck to save the lives of whites. When whites were attacked in the Cincinnati riots they called it “Acceptable Venting.” There may well be a hot civil war here, but I for one won’t be sticking around for it.
I think you are correct. During the Spanish Civil War, there was not as much of a geographical division of sentiments as found during America’s Civil War. Often, rightists and leftists coexisted in the same town, though mostly in different neighborhoods. That is similar to the situation in the US today.
Of course, as the war evolved, left/right groups coalesced and people moved to the areas controlled by the side they agreed with. Often they were forced to move because of violence.
The so-called fifth columnists were rightists in Madrid supposedly helping the Nationalist forces as four columns of Franco’s army moved on the capital.
Both sides were coalitions. The Loyalist faction was made up of liberals, republicans, anti-clericals, syndicalists, anarchists, and Communists. In the end, they were betrayed by Stalin and the Communists.
The Nationalist side included monarchists (like Franco), authoritarians, clericalists, conservatives/reactionaries, and fascists. Franco is generally not considered to have been a fascist. He used the fascists for his own purposes.
Yup. It's f***ing insane. Both parties are going to pay a price for it.
There will either be a religious right third party, or a fusion "national unity" center party, or even both
I agree with you about the fusion "national unity" center party. I think the serious activists of both right and left have basically driven away "normal Americans." The whackadoodle left is alienating Democrats, and the "I speak for God, who hates illegal immigrants" wing of the Republican party is doing the same on the right.
As Steyn puts it, "in advanced democracies, politics is not everything, and we get on with our lives. In a sense, we outsource politics to those who want it most and participate albeit fitfully in whatever parameters of discourse emerge."
What I think probably happens is that a center (leaning vaguely rightward) party forms around somebody whose positions are somewhere in the vicinity of a Rudy Giuliani (though probably not Rudy himself).
The looney-left Democrats will coalesce around somebody like Hillary or Ron Paul, and the remaining Republicans will commit suicide with somebody like Tom Tancredo.
Interesting times. It would be hard to rule out almost anything going forward.
I can’t disagree with a word of that.
Dispatches from the CCW (cold civil war)
Yes, but considering that the numbers are very small, I'm not it's of more than local importance -- sorta like the "Republic of Texas" folks from a few years back.
FR is a great place, but (like DU) I seriously doubt that it represents anything close to mainstream political views, such as they are.
I'm more inclined to believe that the mainstream will end up rejecting both extremes, and realigning to a centrist party. This election, or the next one, is probably the last gasp of the hideous primary mess that has metastasized over the last 40 years or so.
And thd Spanish at least all spoke (not counting Catalan or Basque) one language, Spanish, and were all of one basic ethnic stock. Today we in the USA have a more complicated situation, with a large Spanish speaking minority in many parts of the country, and multiple races, white, black, etc. If anything, our CW could be uglier than Spain's, and that was hell on earth.
Got to 2012 and have a charismatic conservative sweep the republican primaries on a platform of massive deportation, nuclear attack against the country found plotting against us, etc.
The left and their fellow travelers in the media, academia, Hollywood will kick up an outrage, violence will be in the mix. Threats will be made if this conservative is elected against Saint Hillary and if he, or she, wins half the country will refuse to recognize the election.
This scenario is sliding from possible to probable with each passing day.
That's not "one scenario," that's a series of worst-case scenarios, none of which has any necessary connection to the next.
The only "new" thing you've brought to the table is that Hillary Clinton gets elected ... and then what? Would she be effective?
Methinks his point is that a particular election outcome will greatly increase the chance of the other events.
“Civilization” exists only insofar as people cooperate, which usually happens only because great personal harm will promptly follow if they don’t. Given a leader expressing no semblance of what is usually called “strength” (i.e.: enforcement instad of empathy), the expected result is collapse of borders, welfare and security.
Bush responded to 9/11 by overthrowing two governments.
How would Hillary respond?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.