What Might Civil War Be Like?

American Thinker ^ | December 20, 2017 | E.M. Cadwaladr

[fwdude]

The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "And we're not talking about 'every order', but the very specific situation in which a law has been passed by 'duly elected authority', and an order issued for the military to deliberately violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

So you're still fantasizing.
Unconstitutional laws are subject to Supreme Court strike-down.
The US military is still subject to posse comitatus & Insurrection Act limitations.

So now you fantasize all that goes away, the Dems rule everything and, in effect, launch all-out civil war on conservatives.
Well, I'd say fantasy is fun, but the reality would certainly be more, ah, complex & textured, and it would be impossible predict now how that may or may not play out.
But the bottom line is: any military or police are required to obey constitution & law, regardless of orders.

So I just don't think it's going to happen.

Wonder Warthog: "WHAT ARE THOSE OUTLINES and WHAT IS THAT "SPECIAL TRAINING FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS"?"

Rules of engagement typical for any military situation.
They are under presidential authority and, as we've seen this year against terrorists, those rules can be changed as needed.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Look up "the excluded middle," dude.
Not wanting your boat rocked is not the same as what you'll do when it is.
It's not that hard a distinction to make."

Look it up yourself, dudette.
Nobody wants "their boat rocked", but you clearly describe police response as being to mess with those who do it, i.e.:

"I have yet to meet a single working police officer that has, or will, repudiate the practice of lying to a 'suspect.' "

"I could go on about other practices that are taken for granted, yet antithetical to 'American' culture, values, and founding princ"

I'd call that police "messing with", you can call it whatever you wish.

papertyger: "I just gave you an example of the cognitive dissonance, without which, a cop will not be allowed to advance higher than ticket writer."

No, you cited only your own experience so I countered it with my experience, which has been different.
I don't recognize what you describe, outside the fantasies we see in some action-adventure movies or TV series.

papertyger: "It's awfully hard for me to give unqualified support to an entire profession when by all indications that profession requires, either by inclination or by training, one to be a high functioning sociopath."

I don't agree with your characterizations.

papertyger: "But you don't have to take my word for it.
Just watch a few YouTube videos of lawyers speaking on how (and why) to behave when stopped by the police."

Oh, well then, that absolutely clinches your argument.
If it's on YouTube then nobody can dispute it, must be 100% true 100% of the time.

So I surrender to your vastly superior facts & reasons.

</awe>

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "No, your "answer" is doctrinaire, and therefore does not satisfy the question you're being asked."

Nothing "doctrinaire" about it, just simple common sense.
Sorry if common sense doesn't satisfy you two.

papertyger: "But make no mistake, you ARE tap-dancing around the question by giving a doctrinaire answer."

No, nothing "tap-dancing" or "doctrinaire" about it, just simple common sense.
Sorry if that's not good enough for y'all.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "They will NOT leave it with "you don't obey illegal orders...period" as the final say (which is to say completely UN-trained on the subject)."

Now you're just lying about my response.
You clearly believe recruits get some form of legal training, and you wish me to post just exactly what that is, right?

And you are labeling anything short of that as "doctrinaire" or "tap-dancing" or you'll just lie about it as being "completely UN-trained".

And your reason for making such a ludicrous fuss over this is what, exactly?

Consider, here is the military oath of office:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]"

[papertyger]

So I surrender to your vastly superior facts & reasons.

Would to God!

Your problem is you won't surrender to anything. All you do is gainsay, then slap on the first rationalization you can cook up for it.

If what you're looking for is someone to massage your ego, and confirm how smart you think you already are, how about you find a nice support group more suited to that and stop wasting our time.

Failing that, how about actually reading the responses you get instead of associating them with the closest cliche you can think of, then firing off a response to your own straw man.

Clearly, your response to my comment about making distinction between wanting to be left alone, and what one will do when that tranquility is disrupted, indicates someone who is profoundly lacking in intellect, or suffering from an inferiority complex on par with a solitaire cheat, and in either case would argue against "the law of identity" if found on the wrong side of it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Now you're just lying about my response."

Wasn't referring to your response. The military trains for EVERYTHING. There must exist some training covering legal and illegal orders and some indication of how to distinguish cases.

"You clearly believe recruits get some form of legal training, and you wish me to post just exactly what that is, right?"

Wrong. I "do" believe that recruits get some form of training on the topic. Whether you post it or not is irrelevant.

"And you are labeling anything short of that as "doctrinaire" or "tap-dancing" or you'll just lie about it as being "completely UN-trained".

"I" didn't label anything "doctrinaire". But the logical result of your assertions "is" that soldiers "are" completely un-trained on the topic of legal vs. illegal orders.

"And your reason for making such a ludicrous fuss over this is what, exactly?"

I am concerned about what the military might do in the face of the specific violation of the Constitution of an order to seize civilian arms.

You can blow it off as a fantasy. I don't consider it to be so impossible. Your last comment was basically "I don't wanna think about it".

"I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]"

I'm well aware of the oath of enlistment. Now, how are those words reduced to practical military doctrine, and what is the training covering an incident of same.

Your comment of trying to end things with the oath "is" tap dancing (or doctrinaire, to use papertyger's terms).

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "You can blow it off as a fantasy.
I don't consider it to be so impossible."

You've conjured up a fantasy, pure & simple, which you yourself have somewhat answered: " I 'do' believe that recruits get some form of training on the topic."

You might also remember that the military itself is already staffed with lawyers -- Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) -- who have studied for years the difference between lawful & unlawful orders.
But that's not good enough for you, right?
You wish to fantasize that the JAGs are gone, and the Democrat Congress passes laws authorizing or requiring the US military to confiscate civilian weapons, right?

So push has come to shove, and in your fantasy individual soldiers are forced to chose whether to obey the law or the Constitution, right?
But let me suggest to you, since this is all pure fantasy, we fantasize that Dems have not only passed laws, but also changed the Constitution, removing the second amendment.
What then, hmmmmmmm?

Well, nothing like that happens overnight, and your fantasy implies a complete collapse of conservative opposition to leftist insanities, which could only happen under the most extreme circumstances, which I cannot even imagine.
But the normal time period required to pass & ratify amendments exceeds usual military first enlistments, so you could well fantasize that true conservative soldiers are gone from the military by the time such orders as you imagine arrive.

Where would they be?
Well perhaps home working to convince their neighbors that conservatism is not as dead as the Left supposes, and with their help conservatives can roll back the tide of political history.
Would that be a satisfactory resolution to your apocalyptic fantasies?

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Would to God!
Your problem is you won't surrender to anything.
All you do is gainsay, then slap on the first rationalization you can cook up for it."

I think you're just describing yourself while projecting your own behavior onto me.

papertyger: "If what you're looking for is someone to massage your ego, and confirm how smart you think you already are, how about you find a nice support group more suited to that and stop wasting our time."

I'll take that as your own New Year's resolution for yourself, and I wish you all the best in whatever number of steps they program.

papertyger: "Failing that, how about actually reading the responses you get instead of associating them with the closest cliche you can think of, then firing off a response to your own straw man. "

Can you even imagine how helpful it would be if you followed your own advice?

papertyger: "Clearly, your response to my comment about making distinction between wanting to be left alone, and what one will do when that tranquility is disrupted, indicates someone who is profoundly lacking in intellect, or suffering from an inferiority complex on par with a solitaire cheat, and in either case would argue against 'the law of identity' if found on the wrong side of it."

So have we now, at long last, come to the end of your catalog of insults so we can get on with discussion?
Or is it that once your list of insults is exhausted, you've nothing left to offer?

[papertyger]

So have we now, at long last, come to the end of your catalog of insults so we can get on with discussion?

Sigh, I edited out my observation of your reliance on a slightly more sophisticated version of "I know you are, but what am I." Too bad. It would have been "oh so appropriate" as I'm sure it would not have changed your response one iota.

I see no need to "get on with the discussion" as doing so with such as you is always ultimately fruitless.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "I see no need to 'get on with the discussion' as doing so with such as you is always ultimately fruitless. "

That's my option B = "...once your list of insults is exhausted, you've nothing left to offer".

So, have a great day and Merry Christmas, FRiend.

[papertyger]

My “list of insults,” as it has for twenty years now, grows or shrinks according to the behavior of my opponent. Specifically, the tactics, diversions, and modification of previous statements used to avoid acknowledging refutation and/or severe flaws demonstrated in proffered opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; they are NOT entitled to have said opinion RESPECTED unless it conforms to the standards of logic, reason, and probability.

Indeed, offering opinion in a public forum that DOES NOT conform to those standards is INVITING insult and abuse.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You've conjured up a fantasy, pure & simple...."

Perhaps, but a lot of other Second Amendment supporters are concerned about the same "fantasy".

"You might also remember that the military itself is already staffed with lawyers -- Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) -- who have studied for years the difference between lawful & unlawful orders.But that's not good enough for you, right?"

I'm well aware of JAGS and what they do. My question is "what do the JAGS tell the troops about this specific situation."

"You wish to fantasize that the JAGs are gone, and the Democrat Congress passes laws authorizing or requiring the US military to confiscate civilian weapons, right?

Why would JAGS need to be gone??? And the Democrats in Congress most certainly believe they can pass laws requiring the seizure of civilian weapons, since D. Feinstein has just introduced legislation for a second and more extensive "assault weapons ban".

"So push has come to shove, and in your fantasy individual soldiers are forced to chose whether to obey the law or the Constitution, right?

Yup.

"But let me suggest to you, since this is all pure fantasy, we fantasize that Dems have not only passed laws, but also changed the Constitution, removing the second amendment. What then, hmmmmmmm?

Completely different situation. "IF" the progressive forces succeed in amending the Constitution according to the prodedures laid out in the Constitution itself, then guns are gone. The HONEST gun-grabbers admit that that is the only legitimate way to attack guns...not an end run around the Constitution via Congress.

"Well, nothing like that happens overnight, and your fantasy implies a complete collapse of conservative opposition to leftist insanities, which could only happen under the most extreme circumstances, which I cannot even imagine. But the normal time period required to pass & ratify amendments exceeds usual military first enlistments, so you could well fantasize that true conservative soldiers are gone from the military by the time such orders as you imagine arrive.

As shown in paragraph above....not the same situation. But nice "bait and switch" debate tactic.

"Would that be a satisfactory resolution to your apocalyptic fantasies?"

No, because your bait and switch of topics won't fly.

But keep on dancin', you do it so well.

FWIW, I am researching the subject myself, and your position ain't lookin' so good. But it will take a few days to dig through all the information I am finding (search term:

"illegal order" military training programs

and time limited to 2017)

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion; they are NOT entitled to have said opinion RESPECTED unless it conforms to the standards of logic, reason, and probability."

And in so saying, you positively invite insults on yourself, since you practice with a vengeance the very "crimes" against logic you accuse me of.
After all, what is all this rubbish you've been posting if not, in your own words, "the tactics, diversions, and modification of previous statements..."

You fantasize yourself some kind of expert, a recognized authority on all effective discourse, and yet you demonstrate nothing, zero, only blowing ever more smoke to cover your tracks to "avoid acknowledging refutation and/or severe flaws demonstrated in [your] proffered opinions."

papertyger: "Indeed, offering opinion in a public forum that DOES NOT conform to those standards is INVITING insult and abuse."

So I take it you just love to be insulted.
Sorry if I disappoint you in that.

[Tammy8]

Not everyone has all the issues you say people are concerned with. In fact I know few people who have even half of that to worry about.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "No, because your bait and switch of topics won't fly.
But keep on dancin', you do it so well."

But there's no "bait & switch" because I already told you your fantasy cannot happen, period, and cited the enlistment oath to the constitution.
I then offered up an alternate scenario which might happen.

Wonder Warthog: "My question is 'what do the JAGS tell the troops about this specific situation.' "

The simple answer, which should be obvious to you, is: they don't need to tell the troops anything, if they do their jobs and advise commanders against issuing unconstitutional orders.
Only extreme corruption up & down the chain of command would ever put individual troops in the position of trying to decide if a certain order is, or is not, constitutional.

Wonder Warthog: "Completely different situation.
"IF" the progressive forces succeed in amending the Constitution according to the prodedures laid out in the Constitution itself, then guns are gone."

So have we now established that there are no circumstances under which ordinary military troops should ever be put in the position of trying to decide if certain orders are, or are not, constitutional?

Wonder Warthog: "FWIW, I am researching the subject myself, and your position ain't lookin' so good.
But it will take a few days to dig through all the information I am finding..."

So now, having long & loudly complained that I keep "tap dancing" around an answer (i.e., your posts #226 & 232), you finally claim to know my "position" and you assure me now it "ain't lookin' so good"??

So tell us all, sir, what "position" is that, and why is it not "lookin' so good"?

[Tammy8]

I don’t think any group “owns” the military. If it was truly a civil war situation I actually think the military would be divided into groups itself. One group would decide to take one side, one group another or align with whatever group/agenda they personally identify with. I think more than we can imagine would just decide not to take part at all- basically just walk away from it all.

[Tammy8]

A common goal is a pretty good catalyst for organization, whatever would spark off such a thing would also ignite leadership. In times of crisis, there seem to always be those with natural leadership abilities and that brings about organization, planning.

[Tammy8]

I grew up the same way. I would not like to go back to that life, but the point is I do know how and could do it.

[tired&retired]

It makes it much easier to live a life of gratitude rather than feeling entitled.

[Tammy8]

I was raised to believe the world owed me nothing. I just wish more people understood that.