Civil War

T

theel4life

Iconic Member
Messages
1,991
How would that even work? It’s not like we all meet up at a specific location wearing red and blue jerseys and start shooting on the count of 10.
 
Most civil wars are like what this would be. I think the Spanish Civil War is a good example.

i believe the US Civil War where there were distinct geographical areas fighting each other with the vast majority of those living in those geographical regions supporting the same side, is far less common.
 
theel4life said:
How would that even work? It’s not like we all meet up at a specific location wearing red and blue jerseys and start shooting on the count of 10.
Click to expand...
But if you are asking the right what they envision for the civil war, I think none of us will like the answer.

They have every lever of power at the federal level yet they are calling for a war. That can only mean one thing - the widespread removal of civil rights from half the country - which would likely result in widespread murder.

How else can you interpret the calls of civil war from those who already have power?

I do believe that this is still a fringe position. Miller is advocating for removal of a lot of civil rights but he hasn’t yet advocated for war. Nor has Trump.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Most civil wars are like what this would be. I think the Spanish Civil War is a good example.

i believe the US Civil War where there were distinct geographical areas fighting each other with the vast majority of those living in those geographical regions supporting the same side, is far less common.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Most civil wars are like what this would be. I think the Spanish Civil War is a good example.

i believe the US Civil War where there were distinct geographical areas fighting each other with the vast majority of those living in those geographical regions supporting the same side, is far less common.
Click to expand...
Even the Spanish civil war ended up with some pretty firm geographical lines. Initially it was the Republicans in the middle and southeast of the country while the nationalist rebels took power in the west. There were significant pockets of Republicans, especially in the cities of the nationalists, but eventually, those fell.

So if it does follow the Spanish model, you probably see more liberal zones in the Northeast and West Coast and more conservative zones in the rest of the country. Even places like Houston, Dallas, Chicago, and Atlanta would likely be controlled by conservatives pretty quickly.

And my guess is it would be pretty terrible. Best case scenario is something like the civil war in the United states. Civilians were mostly left alone, and the fronts got established pretty quickly. Even Sherman's March to the Sea was mild compared to what happened in Spain and other revolutionary countries.
 
In the Spanish Civil War the Fascists had another Fascist country (Germany) trying out new weaponry and tactics (blitzkrieg) on behalf of the bad guys. (Guernica). Is that sort of thing going to happen here?

The issue is the 2nd amendment cuts both ways. In our last Civil War the North had the industry and capacity to manufacture weapons much more so than the South. Similar to Germany at the end of the 2nd WW, the South was running out of guns, supplies and ammo.

Today, the ironic thing is the right wing has been steadfast in making sure every single left winger that has a gun can keep it. And anyone that wants one can get one. So if it does come down to taking up arms against fellow Americans, we’re all armed… The bombing and total destruction of U.S. cities? Perhaps.

Also, once the military is forced to turn their sites on fellow Americans and American cities, you can look for some servicemen, including Generals, who will choose a side… and you may be surprised that not all would choose the Republican side. There will be some dissension within the ranks. Doing what Hitler and Germany did in that small country ain’t happening here. There is no way the red side can arrest and incarcerate the entirety of the blue side.

Finally, just like in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the rest of the world will also take sides. Look for China to make their move then.
I doubt NATO, the E.U. Etc. will choose to back Trump and MAGA. The result will be WWIII. It won’t just be a neat, little, self-contained “civil” war. It’ll be WW3 baby. And considering that the first two world wars were fought on European, African and Asian soil, it’s about time for a world war to be visited upon these shores.

MAGA better be careful what they wish for, they may just get it… and more than they bargained for.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Even the Spanish civil war ended up with some pretty firm geographical lines. Initially it was the Republicans in the middle and southeast of the country while the nationalist rebels took power in the west. There were significant pockets of Republicans, especially in the cities of the nationalists, but eventually, those fell.

So if it does follow the Spanish model, you probably see more liberal zones in the Northeast and West Coast and more conservative zones in the rest of the country. Even places like Houston, Dallas, Chicago, and Atlanta would likely be controlled by conservatives pretty quickly.

And my guess is it would be pretty terrible. Best case scenario is something like the civil war in the United states. Civilians were mostly left alone, and the fronts got established pretty quickly. Even Sherman's March to the Sea was mild compared to what happened in Spain and other revolutionary countries.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would really play out in a real "battle lines" scenario where two sides control chunks of territory. It is likely that the vast majority of the formal "military" would be on one side of the conflict - i.e., whoever happens to control the federal government when things go down (which would probably take the form of rebellion against what was perceived to be the unjust exercise of federal government authority) would control the military and its resources like tanks, planes, etc. The other side would by necessity be waging a more diffuse, probably terroristic/guerilla campaign focused on small groups, drones, personal and homemade weapons, etc. Sure, individual soldiers and groups of soldiers would probably defect from the government's side for whatever reason, but few of them would be bringing sophisticated military equipment with them. Maybe some states' national guards would end up on the "anti-government" side, but not enough to allow their side to really control material chunks of territory, IMO.

Personally though a think a true Civil War is really unlikely - I think we would be more likely to have some ugly civil unrest, domestic terror, protests spreading across cities, etc then anything that could be called a "war."
 
rodoheel said:
I don't think it would really play out in a real "battle lines" scenario where two sides control chunks of territory. It is likely that the vast majority of the formal "military" would be on one side of the conflict - i.e., whoever happens to control the federal government when things go down (which would probably take the form of rebellion against what was perceived to be the unjust exercise of federal government authority) would control the military and its resources like tanks, planes, etc. The other side would by necessity be waging a more diffuse, probably terroristic/guerilla campaign focused on small groups, drones, personal and homemade weapons, etc. Sure, individual soldiers and groups of soldiers would probably defect from the government's side for whatever reason, but few of them would be bringing sophisticated military equipment with them. Maybe some states' national guards would end up on the "anti-government" side, but not enough to allow their side to really control material chunks of territory, IMO.

Personally though a think a true Civil War is really unlikely - I think we would be more likely to have some ugly civil unrest, domestic terror, protests spreading across cities, etc then anything that could be called a "war."
Click to expand...

Which way the military goes to the bit of a crapshoot. Sometimes they tend to stay with the government and sometimes they break off depending on which side they support.

I would agree that civil war in the United States is extremely unlikely. They're incredibly rare post colonialism in developed countries. You had the Bosnian conflicts, a few short lived uprisings and you could make an argument that these wars to break free from a colonial overlord might count but that's about it. Most post WW2 civil wars between groups within a country were in they left developed areas of Africa, the middle east, and Asia. Even in Europe when there was some pretty intense terroristic activity, it very rarely got to a point where there was a civil war despite half the continent converting from one form of government to another.
 
How do you envision those on the right who are calling for civil war see such a war playing out? They have every bit of the power at the federal level. So the question is who exactly are they wanting to fight against and what would they plan to do to them?
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
How do you envision those on the right who are calling for civil war see such a war playing out? They have every bit of the power at the federal level. So the question is who exactly are they wanting to fight against and what would they plan to do to them?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. Who are they wanting to fight, and why? What do they hope to gain? Who do they think will back them (whole-heartedly)? And like you asked: what do they plan to "do" with the people once they are vanquished or rounded up as "prisoners of war"?
 
Centerpiece said:
Excellent question. Who are they wanting to fight, and why? What do they hope to gain? Who do they think will back them (whole-heartedly)? And like you asked: what do they plan to "do" with the people once they are vanquished or rounded up as "prisoners of war"?
Click to expand...
When Biden was POTUS they wanted to go to war with the government. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!! Now the right controls POTUS, Congress and the Courts. So obviously they don't want to go to war with the government (for now). They want to go to war with "the left". Except they really don't. It's all fantasy. They lack the courage of their convictions. Sure, there will be isolated incidents here and there, but there will be no civil war. Going to be difficult going to Morgan Wallen concerts when the grid is down, travel is restricted and the war time economy is in the shitter. IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top