Under what conditions we need a revolution/civil war?

The government could absolutely win the fight. If the people went up against the US military, how would they defeat them? I gave you specifics on what they'd be up against. Not your thoughts about "ruthless".

 

The military wouldn't stand a chance. Want to know why? 50-60% of them would defect rather than kill their fellow American soldiers. Maybe more.

The military couldn't even defeat a motivated Vietnamese army.

 

It depends on the state, If it's CA I damned well don't see how we could stop them, and if it's Mississippi or Louisiana I'll help them pack. In any case it's silly, Most people can't even tell you who their state legislators are, let alone be willing to die for them.

The only way we're going to have a Civil War is when Trump starts mass arrests and assassinations of people he doesn't like, like Butt-Buddy Vladdikins. I think that will be sometime next year after these coming elections have quarantined him from real power and he's sent out tweets dissolving Congress and naming himself Trump I. The Cabinet will use Amendment 25 but no one will tell him, they'll just say we've been attacked by Canada (who knew they had nukes?) and send him off to a fixed up room in the old Greenbriars, as long as he has unlimited Cokes and KFC along with tapes of The Apprentice and lots of hookers who resemble Ivanka he'll never notice.

 

AntiFa can barely beat up snowflake cuck white racists.

There won't be a civil war.

 

Your post makes little sense. If the military would defect rather than kill American Soldiers, it means the military would be fighting the military. The premise here is would the military put down a rebellion.

As for Vietnam, the military had little trouble with the VC or NVA. The casualty rates exceeded 10 to 1. They won every major battle. Politicians refused to loose them and let them reek the havoc necessary to end that conflict.

 

So the ostracised people in the American Civil War where the slaves?

 

The havoc necessary to end Vietnam would have entailed killing every single man, woman and chlld in the country, a somewhat self-defeating proposition since the whole purpose of our being there in the first place was to "save" the Vietnamese from communism.

And this thread is increasingly silly, No one is going to die for a "State" few people can even name their own lieutenant governor of and nor do I think anybody is willing to face torture over their Health Care plan. Sorry Crimson Sky people, elections are dull but they're all we have for several lifetimes

 

"Killing every man, woman and child in the country", really. I thought you were clueless, this removes all doubt.

Who said anything about dying for a state? Is a revolution likely, no. However, several democrat leaders are promoting and encouraging mob violence. How big of a step is it from a bunch of wackos wearing masks and carrying clubs to trade those clubs for guns? They have no trouble attacking people and property. What is the next step?

 

Why don't you just say you have no rebuttal to something I say instead of the "clueless"insult without any reason or backing? Admit your defeat openly, don't try to disguise it.

You cons are big on asking for direct quotes, Do you have any where Democratic leaders are promoting mob violence?

 

When our President starts supporting violence, we have a big problem.

It's a short hop from supporting violence to ordering it.

 

No, the South was ostracized. Throughout the 19th century economic changes in the world were putting the South at a disadvantage. This was compounded by the Northern states using their power in DC to levy taxes and tariffs and implement treaties which favored the North and penalized the South. Slavery was also an issue although it was not abolished in the South until late in the Civil War (because the North was losing and Lincoln thought it would cause problems for the Southern war effort), and it was not abolished in the North until after the Civil War.

The Missouri Compromise (1820) was a temporary attempt to maintain a semblance of political equality. In the 1850's California Minnesota Kansas Oregon became states and decisively shifted the balance of political power to the North.

When Lincoln was elected in 1860 the North controlled the entire federal govt, the Northern states already controlled the House and Senate. That was the final straw.

The end result was that the South had no ability to influence the federal govt and that federal govt had been and would continue to act against the interest of the South.

 

There will not be another Civil War in the USA. There may be acts of domestic terrorism from various ultra right and ultra left groups and individuals for various causes or cult beliefs, but not a general uprising of any significant factions.

Political turmoil will continue, it is what we seem to do. People get caught up in the dog and pony show of one side or another, they cheer for their champion of the moment. It always passes. In 2016 we had a choice of disasters, we dodged one awful choice and got shat upon by the other. Don't lose hope tho, every now and then we get someone who is more of a leader than he is a tool of his side. The cycle continues.

For those who think a war is coming, keep in mind there is a dynamic in the USA completely different from any other country in history. The US military and police combined own a tiny quantity of firearms and ammunition compared to the civilian population. Plus it is extremely unlikely that official forces would remain cohesive in the face of a civil war. There would be refusals to fight their own forces or citizens. There would be individuals and units going over to one side or the other. The very idea that a civil war across the nation could be put down by our military is laughable.

Also keep in mind that contrary to the politically dogmatic beliefs of the right and the left wings, all the guns are not owned by the right. Lots of liberals own guns and know how to use them. Same is true of moderates. I'm a moderate, member of GOA, SAF and the NRA. I do not agree with the extremes of either side. If either side tried to start a war, people like me would not sit idly by.

Which is, in the end, one strong reason why a civil war is unlikely. Too many people do not want one and have the means to prevent it.

 

Vietnam was lost by our government leaders who would not allow our military leaders to fight the war the the they wanted to and win.

 

LBJ was briefed by the Joint Chief as to their plan to win the war. LBJ threw them out of the office and instilled his own plan. That was late 1965. Then after 50,000+ dead using LBJ's plan, Nixon dusted off the Joint Chief's 1965 plan and won the war with the Christmas bombing in late 1972.

In 1975 the Democrats stabbed the South in the back by refusing to allow President Ford to honor the commitment this country made to the South so they would sign the Paris Peace Accords. Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese died. The Democrats are still laughing at their own treachery.

If LBJ had used the Chief's plan, the war would have been over in 1966.

 

I guess it is easy to see that some moron who thinks the only way to win a war is to "kill every man, woman and child" in that country would claim he won an argument. It shows a detach from reality.

 

So to solve what was really just a political dispute over power you were willing to sacrifice over 600000 lives, half of the soldiers you have lost in ALL wars. Is that democracy at work?

 

It was really Brittish Intelligence at work. They fomented both the Souths cesession and the North's aggressive response to it in an attempt to weaken the US and reclaim the colonies militarily. Toward the end of the war, there was a Brittish fleet sailing toward the east coast when a Russian fleet arrived in (Charleston? iirc) to 'provide moral support to the US during its time of troubles.' It sat there until the Brittish armada turned away.

History is sketchy on the official purpose of the Brittish fleet and the arrival of the Russian fleet has always been a 'wtf history?' kinda deal, but it makes sense that the US would have been ripe for invasion amid such chaos, and that Russia had a vested stake in preventing the Brittish Empire from regaining control of the New World.

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017...d-british-led-intervention-against-the-union/

 

What shows a detach from reality is thinking you won a war where your country no longer exists and your former capital city has been re-named after the Founder of your Conqueror's nation

 

It was far more than just a "political dispute over power". Political power has consequences, and the North wielded that power to its financial and cultural advantage. Essentially, the Southern states were becoming vassal states to the North.

Nobody at the time expected the Civil War to last very long or to be as deadly as it turned out to be. In fact, up until shots were fired at Ft. Sumter, there were behind the scenes talks about a peaceful split. The first several battles after Sumter were short and quick with few casualties. People really expected the "war" to be quick and fairly bloodless - that sentiment is reflected in letters and newspapers of the time.

At the first real battle of the Civil War (Bull Run), civilians from DC came to watch, but the battle was bloody and fierce and was a first taste of what was coming.

If everyone knew the cost of the Civil War, there would have been a very different attitude in the North and South about secession.

 

So you're saying the U.S. military would happily follow orders to exterminate and hunt down Americans..... Guerilla warfare is why despite all of the tech advantages, we are still in Afghanistan. We aren't ruthless enough to wipe them out.

 

If the US population waged a war against our military, that's exactly what I'm saying. Go back and re-read the posts.

What would a police department do if you tried to go in there guns blazing?

 

BTW ask Iraq about how unsavage we are

 

I don't know where you picked up the thought or belief that a leftist would want a civil war. That's nuts. Leftists are inclusivists. They believe everyone counts & everyone should be included. They seek unity, not divisiveness or separateness. The LAST THING any liberal would want is a civil war. Anyone who believes we leftists--liberals--want civil war, are victims of conservative propaganda and are totally brainwashed. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Under what conditions we need a revolution/civil war?
None. Ever. There are no conditions that should lead to a civil war in the U.S. Anyone who believes there are issues so important a civil war would be an acceptable way to resolve it, are people who have so little love or respect for our country that they feel winning on an issue is more important than the survival of the country. I know of no liberals who feel that way. I certainly don't. I find it alarming that anyone would advocate for civil war, or even consider it. The very act of suggesting it implies they are not patriots, and they don't care for the U.S. or honor its history or its ideals. Rather than tolerating their divisiveness, let's encourage them to find a more suitable place for them to move to. And, let's continue finding answers to the issues that divide us, just as we've always done. Let's be as good as our forefathers, who cared enough to leave us a great nation founded on the highest of moral ideals, coupled to the necessary assurances that we can always find a way to solve them together.

 

They have once, why not again