What can be done to avoid civil war?

[dad]

Sometimes God lets bad get as bad as bad can get ("the evil of the Amelekites").

We're not there yet.

Ok..guess we'll check in with you to see if the bad is really bad. Keep us posted.

 

[RDKirk]

Ok..guess we'll check in with you to see if the bad is really bad. Keep us posted.

As I've already said, it's not as bad as the 1960s yet. It's not even as bad as the 1860s.

 

[dad]

As I've already said, it's not as bad as the 1960s yet. It's not even as bad as the 1860s.

Must be my imagination...

 

[RDKirk]

Must be my imagination...

Yep.

How long will we have to go without civil war before you will admit that it was just your imagination?

 

[Sparagmos]

You know, when there is distrust, things change. When I see an article about explosives planted in Soros and Clinton's homes there is the immediate suspicion of a false flag near election time. There seems to be a chasm between sides.

I am not from the US so I am not on a side although I basically think God will lower the boom if the baby killing dems get in again.

Well you are entitled to your opinions however it’s clear they are not grounded in facts or history.

 

[dad]

Yep.

How long will we have to go without civil war before you will admit that it was just your imagination?

The question was what could be done to avid one, considering the deep feelings. Many said just either ignore it or be lovey dovey. Your suggestion was..'what, me worry? - everything is fine' Ok.

 

[dad]

Well you are entitled to your opinions however it’s clear they are not grounded in facts or history.

False flags actually are fact and have been a long time.

 

[RDKirk]

The question was what could be done to avid one, considering the deep feelings. Many said just either ignore it or be lovey dovey. Your suggestion was..'what, me worry? - everything is fine' Ok.

Identifying national trends and events that lead to things like civil wars was my day job for 26 years.

Nothing like that is happening in the US. There are no trends leading to a civil war in the US. By "civil war" I'm talking about armed groups carrying out sustained combat operations. Anything less than that called a "civil war" is rhetorical hype.

 

[dad]

Identifying national trends and events that lead to things like civil wars was my day job for 26 years.

Nothing like that is happening in the US. There are no trends leading to a civil war in the US. By "civil war" I'm talking about armed groups carrying out sustained combat operations. Anything less than that called a "civil war" is rhetorical hype.

You might be right. Seems to me the population in the is is armed though.

 

[RDKirk]

You might be right. Seems to me the population in the is is armed though.

One side is armed, but that side doesn't normally shoot people, but that side is less likely to act.

The other side is more likely to act, but they're also feckless.

Nobody is really willing to endure the years of physical deprivation that would mark a civil war.

Maybe stick a small explosive in a mailbox and then go back to a comfortable home and watch it on television. But endure the years of physical deprivation of a genuine civil war? You're not going to find that group in America today.

 

[slobake]

One side is armed, but that side doesn't normally shoot people, but that side is less likely to act.

The other side is more likely to act, but they're also feckless.

Nobody is really willing to endure the years of physical deprivation that would mark a civil war.

Maybe stick a small explosive in a mailbox and then go back to a comfortable home and watch it on television. But endure the years of physical deprivation of a genuine civil war? You're not going to find that group in America today.

I agree with everything except the statement that only one side is armed. There are fringe groups on both sides of the spectrum.
I think some people here are missing the point. I agree that we won't have an actual civil war here but some folks here on this site are content to continue to bang the same old drum that is causing the problem. Insisting that it is all the fault of the other side just continues to create polarization and division. If you go along with those who are trying to divide our nation it will not solve anything and it will continue to weaken our country.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree with everything except the statement that only one side is armed. There are fringe groups on both sides of the spectrum.

A fringe group cannot carry out a civil war. A minority party can carry out a civil war if they have substantial enough general population support willing to suffer the deprivation of a civil war (such as the Viet Cong).

But that's nowhere close to being the case in the US. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are so fed up with the current US government system that the memberships of the political parties are willing to suffer the deprivations of war in order to see the government deposed by violence.

I would say that one side is armed only to the extent that a much greater proportion of "organizable" conservatives are armed than "organizable" liberals.

That doesn't mean that armed "organizable" conservatives ever will be organized into an actual fighting force, however.

It might have been interesting (by "interesting" I mean "hair raising") to see what would have happened if Russian interference in the last election had been widely reported to the extent that the election was actually contested. Fortunately, the Electoral College actually protects us from such things.

But if that could happen, we might be put into a situation such as that in the Philippines in 1986. But even that situation required the passive/aggressive involvement of the US into the political affairs of the Philippines to a greater extent than any nation can currently exhibit in the US.

I think some people here are missing the point. I agree that we won't have an actual civil war here but some folks here on this site are content to continue to bang the same old drum that is causing the problem. Insisting that it is all the fault of the other side just continues to create polarization and division. If you go along with those who are trying to divide our nation it will not solve anything and it will continue to weaken our country.

Yes, that is possible. It will most likely lead to a government and a body politic that is ineffective in most ways, and American life will become gradually more and more chaotic until we look hardly different from a "banana republic." Like the Philippines under Marcos.

 

[Rubricnigel]

A day where women who are sexually assaulted are taken seriously would be a good start.

I hope you are calling for Cory Booker to be investigated by the FBI, and for him to step down, for assaulting a Gay man in a bathroom. Least till the investigation is complete
#Metoo
#Believeallsurviors
#GuiltyNowEvidenceLater

 

[Gigimo]

It was, in my opinion, and is, being pushed and financed by parties with other priorities and goals than what is best for the US.

There are a whole lot of folks out there who would love to see the US drug down to their level.

 

[Gigimo]

I hope you are calling for Cory Booker to be investigated by the FBI, and for him to step down, for assaulting a Gay man in a bathroom. Least till the investigation is complete

You should do a Internet search of him and sexual assaults and see who is covering the homo man assault story and who is ignoring it. And the ones ignoring it are using an old "He groped so and so back in the 90s when he was young and dumb" story as a cover, not realizing they're just exposing more of his behavior.

 

[FireDragon76]

A fringe group cannot carry out a civil war. A minority party can carry out a civil war if they have substantial enough general population support willing to suffer the deprivation of a civil war (such as the Viet Cong).

But that's nowhere close to being the case in the US. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are so fed up with the current US government system that the memberships of the political parties are willing to suffer the deprivations of war in order to see the government deposed by violence.

I would say that one side is armed only to the extent that a much greater proportion of "organizable" conservatives are armed than "organizable" liberals.

That doesn't mean that armed "organizable" conservatives ever will be organized into an actual fighting force, however.

It might have been interesting (by "interesting" I mean "hair raising") to see what would have happened if Russian interference in the last election had been widely reported to the extent that the election was actually contested. Fortunately, the Electoral College actually protects us from such things.

But if that could happen, we might be put into a situation such as that in the Philippines in 1986. But even that situation required the passive/aggressive involvement of the US into the political affairs of the Philippines to a greater extent than any nation can currently exhibit in the US.



Yes, that is possible. It will most likely lead to a government and a body politic that is ineffective in most ways, and American life will become gradually more and more chaotic until we look hardly different from a "banana republic." Like the Philippines under Marcos.

Judging by the folks I see at Wal-Mart, most are in no condition for any kind of soldiering. After all, 60 percent of this country is diabetic or pre-diabetic.

I think a civil war is safely off the table.

 

[dad]

One side is armed, but that side doesn't normally shoot people, but that side is less likely to act.

The other side is more likely to act, but they're also feckless.

Nobody is really willing to endure the years of physical deprivation that would mark a civil war.

Maybe stick a small explosive in a mailbox and then go back to a comfortable home and watch it on television. But endure the years of physical deprivation of a genuine civil war? You're not going to find that group in America today.

I wonder if the folks in Syria really thought they were willing to endure what happened, or if tempers just got out of hand and one thing led to another.

 

[dad]

There are a whole lot of folks out there who would love to see the US drug down to their level.

No doubt. The big issue is whether the people themselves are right with God. Otherwise they cannot expect His protection. When the government kills babies and etc...I would suggest they cannot expect God's blessing and protection.

Are things maybe starting to change there...is there some glimmer of hope..or will their enemies be allowed to bring them down in division and destruction?

 

[RDKirk]

I wonder if the folks in Syria really thought they were willing to endure what happened, or if tempers just got out of hand and one thing led to another.

Syria is a current front of the 1400-year-long war between Sunnis and Shiites. Assad is of an Islamic sect called Alawite, which is a minority sect in Syria. The Alawites are aligned with the Shiites.

Assad's father ascended to power over the Sunni majority through, let's say, non-democratic means and then left his son in charge through more non-democratic means. The rebels are Sunnis who are fighting to throw off the minority Alawite Assad regime along with his Shiite allies.

The real question is whether Sunnis in the Middle East (currently led by the Saudis) are willing to continue their 1400-year-long war against the Shiites (currently led by Iran).

The answer to that question is: Yes. Yes, they are willing to continue their war. That's why the war has gone on for 1400 years.

 

[dad]

Syria is a current front of the 1400-year-long war between Sunnis and Shiites. Assad is of an Islamic sect called Alawite, which is a minority sect in Syria. The Alawites are aligned with the Shiites.

Assad's father ascended to power over the Sunni majority through, let's say, non-democratic means and then left his son in charge through more non-democratic means. The rebels are Sunnis who are fighting to throw off the minority Alawite Assad regime along with his Shiite allies.

The real question is whether Sunnis in the Middle East (currently led by the Saudis) are willing to continue their 1400-year-long war against the Shiites (currently led by Iran).

The answer to that question is: Yes. Yes, they are willing to continue their war. That's why the war has gone on for 1400 years.

So if one side is wiling to fight the other...civil war.