Personally, I don't see a Civil War 2 or voting umpteen times year after year the answer to this country's problems. There is only ONE who has the answer.Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde
Senator
Personally, I don't see a Civil War 2 or voting umpteen times year after year the answer to this country's problems. There is only ONE who has the answer.
Judge
This "war" is already underway and the concept of voting has been the distraction from reality and factor of wishful thinking it was intended to be.
And maybe you're right, set the notion of resistance aside and wait for Father to Show us the Way.
I dunno Sherree, I cain't help but think if Father Intended for matters to be as such He'd Have Given us all a tightly matted wool outer layer and two extra legs so's we could run from trouble faster ... 'till we run outta places to run to.
These big ole brains He Gave us ain't been much help in thinkin our way through matters other than how to exploit our neighbors for more $$$
O.W.
Senator
Don't get me wrong, Oscar. If revolution comes to my door, I will fight to defend me and mine alongside CaryC. I'm just saying that I don't believe, in the end, another civil war will accomplish that of which we long for. As for voting, that ship sailed a long time ago.....
Judge
Not if "we" don't set specific objectives, no.
War is not something to be taken lightly. "We" hear about such things through the media who present an overall innocuous picture of a simple misunderstanding. Even the headline of "Hospital packed with ailing children blown to smithereens by allied and coalated all around good guys" garners a response of "meh, not that bigga deal eh?".
First "we" have to consider quality of life and the struggles we endure to achieve that which sustains us in some modicum of comfort ... then consider those who would legislate a significant portion of our labors away from us to provide for others to lazy to do likewise.
And consider those who would legislate to introduce in overwhelming numbers others into our society, who would with violence, attempt to change the ways that we, for decades, have been raised to embrace.
We are at war, war has been thrust upon us. Veterans, the Branch Davidians, the Weavers, John T. Williams, Christian Bakers, users of Fathers natural cornucopia, Wee the peepses collectively, at large from practically every aspect of existing have been and are being besieged.
We are at war! Depending on one's perspective, it's for all the marbles ....
O.W.
Senator
Oh yes, we are at war, depending on a person's perspective.
Congressman
That was kind of my point. The unanimity of government probably would fall apart but, until it does, it serves as a very strong circuit breaker against people taking arms.
So, something has to happen to put the government at odds with itself first and it would have to be a huge thing to get the political class sharpening their knives for each other.
In other words, if there is a civil war at some point, it will likely come from the top down, not bottom up. It won't be patriots rebelling against the empire. More likely it will be suckers killing other suckers for the benefit of politicians grappling for control.
Tree of Liberty Supporter
Anorher rperspective
What Might Civil War Be Like?
The American Thinker ran an interesting piece entitled, “What Might Civil War Be Like?” and the author brings up some good points. I don’t agree on all points, as I’ll explain, but let’s start with what the author gets right and my thoughts.A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside.One thing I noticed in Iraq was the U.S. focus on securing population centers. We look at Operation Gold Rush and the many T-wall projects followed, and we see an effort to root out destabilizing factors like attacks against civilians and critical infrastructure. That was David Kilcullen’s “You have to kill a city in order to save it” strategy. These T-walls were concrete barriers about 12ft. in height and were put around neighborhoods to wall them off. The only traffic into or out of the city was via guarded checkpoints. This enabled — at least in theory — U.S. and Coalition Forces to slowly squeeze off supply lines to insurgents and terrorists operating inside the city. And once you’re out of explosives and ammunition, fighting becomes much more problematic.
But it also enabled — again, in theory — the Government of Iraq to hold elections, where the highest concentration of citizens inside population centers could vote in relative peace. Democratic elections were intended to bring order back to the country, while the remaining insurgents were fought and killed. That was the plan, at least.
And so we read this first statement and we actually see that, as far as state or national elections go, securing the population centers with the greatest number of voters would allow what remains of the nation or the states to hold “free and fair” elections that would give legitimacy to one side of the conflict.
Typically, I’m not a fan of describing what a war would look like on a national level. That really is a fool’s errand at this point. But we can look locally or regionally and get a much better idea of what things could look like. You are probably best suited to do that, as long as you understand some basic tenets of intelligence analysis and have an expert grasp on your locale. But consider that controlling the population centers where voters are certainly would be high on my list if I wanted to retain ‘legitimate’ power.
The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit.I don’t disagree, however, we do run into a conundrum here. On the one hand, if the U.S. government is collapsing, then how can it order and/or pay for the logistics of getting the soldiers home? Something like this would have to be done early in the conflict, before the collapse occurred. If the collapse of the U.S. Government was sudden — let’s say a cyber attack or sudden and overwhelming financial/monetary crisis — then I’m just not sure that we’d be closing down bases overseas and repatriating arms, vehicles, and equipment back to the States. We also have to consider that orders have to be ‘cut’ for redeployment from overseas and money has to be allocated for the logistics behind those moves. So this is not as simple as getting everyone onto planes and coming back to the States. In a true ‘collapse’ scenario, I would not expect U.S. military personnel or equipment to come home any time soon.
Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system… The internet would fail… Financial systems would fail… All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail… Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly.This is a worst case scenario. Part of the doctrine of Low Intensity Conflict is that conflict can happen without the nation stopping. We can look at the IRA’s activity in Great Britain as one example of a low intensity conflict that was fundamentally disruptive, but did not result in collapse. Our national infrastructure certainly is vulnerable, and during a high grade conflict, critical infrastructure is likely to be targeted. That means local or regional systems disruption, however, that does not necessarily mean national collapse. An accumulation of these degraded systems could lead to to a national collapse, though. But I don’t necessarily think a ‘national collapse’ is a foregone conclusion.
A large concern is that if 10-20% or more of working Americans stopped going to work because of a wide scale conflict, then demand for electrical power and cell/internet bandwidth could cause brownouts and blackouts. That would cause a cascade of effects until virtually no one is going to work, and we’ve gone from somewhat small and regional conflicts to a truly national conflict.
And on that point, the trigger of a domestic conflict is likely to dictate what the conflict actually looks like. Organized political violence limited to a specific area might remain limited to that area.
As I see it right now, economic conditions are the lynch pin in question. If economic conditions are improving, if people are working and finding economic success, then they have much less reason to quit their jobs and fight in the streets. But if economic conditions turn south, then a great many more people will lack the optimism we see now, resulting in an ‘I have nothing to do and nothing to lose’ attitude. That’s an attitude we see now, especially in inner cities where conflict is already ongoing, and it’s for that reason the cities will absolutely bear the worst of any domestic conflict.
All in all, it’s a good read, and the author certainly provides some topics to consider.
[Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/what_might_civil_war_be_like.html
https://forwardobserver.com/2017/12/...ampaign=buffer
Europe used to have empires. They were run by emperors.
Then we had kingdoms. They were run by kings.
Now we have countries...
Merchant
The things I think of is that I'm in no shape to carry the weight in a pack. Let alone the pace that would be needed.
And I feel the city's would go up in flames . That what some people do during protest and riots ?
To be sure it will be a very big mess.
Judge
History repeats itself because man is a flawed beast making the same mistakes, perusing the same lusts, over and over again. It is the rational behind de-emasculating men. The ting that Marx never considered is that thinking is a form of war, the battle of ideas is organic to the human condition. Marxism seeks to end all inner conflict through outer oppression
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
“As a general rule, the earlier you recognize someone is trying to kill you, the better off you’ll be.”
"You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
Senator
Personal opinion:
I really don't see a Civil War per se. The reason is, there is no opposing governmental force to lead the way. All the politicians in DC belong to the uniparty. It doesn't matter what is tacked on after their names D or R it's all the same ol, same ol.
Therefore militia groups, or protestors will have little impact, note Venezuela now. I would expect some changes to placate the masses, for a period of time, but no real change in the long run. Bread and circus'.
What I can see is some propellant in the social breakdown. Economic, being the main one. And society breaking into factions, one can almost see that now. Then it will be factions, against factions. Muslim against Christian, white against black, etc.... If to many break at near the same time the government can't control it, and then it spins out of control. When that happens it's each person on their own, and who they can assemble with.
I think the TV series "Revolution" depicts it well, but consider if it's an EMP attack, instead of nanobots sucking up the electricity.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
