A Civil War is COMING!!!!

[GMDino]

Dangnabit!

They sniffed us out!

BREAKING: Democrats Plan To Launch Civil War On July 4th https://t.co/38AWiUFaag

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) July 1, 2018

[Millhouse]

I will definitely side with the right where the guns and military are.

[*michaelsean*]

Who knew Alex Jones read this board? Although some think of it more as a revolution.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

That's stupid

Everyone knows it will start around the first of the year, maybe late Februrary when the "Red Wave" is sworn in.

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2018, 08:44 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I will definitely side with the right where the guns and military are.

I'd think the right wing and the military would be an uneasy alliance seeing how so many right wingers are prepared to fight the military to the death, or so they say.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-02-2018, 09:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd think the right wing and the military would be an uneasy alliance seeing how so many right wingers are prepared to fight the military to the death, or so they say.

Well after they mow down the first hundred in under a second the rest will come around. To the death sounds a lot cooler when your in a cabin doing shots.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2018, 09:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd think the right wing and the military would be an uneasy alliance seeing how so many right wingers are prepared to fight the military to the death, or so they say.

Hell, I've never saw this trend of conservatives wanting to fight the US Military to the death. Perhaps we travel in different circles.  

[Bengalzona]

(07-02-2018, 08:44 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I will definitely side with the right where the guns and military are.

Misconceptions.

The military is split, being that most are from lower income backgrounds.

And the Left may have as many guns as the Right. They just don't feel so insecure as to flaunt them in public and threaten people with them.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2018, 09:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I've never saw this trend of conservatives wanting to fight the US Military to the death. Perhaps we travel in different circles.  

Nah...just to overthrow the "tyrants".

"militias" and all that.

[treee]

I'm gonna launch an uncivil war on some hotdogs and hamburbers, idk bout y'all.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Ever seen the movie "Second Civil War"?

It's a comedy/drama with some big name actors in it like James Earl Jones, Phil Hartman and James Coburn about the federal government forcing a state to take refugees and the state succeeds from the union over it after a bunch of red neck militias from around the country and the states national gaurd, I think, sets up defensive positions.

At the end of the movie, the state succeeds and the Feds roll in with tanks.

It's a decent movie, not great and not horrible. Maybe a rating of 5 or 6, I don't know.

[J24]

I don't see it happening any time soon but it could happen in the next 100 years. Living in a town in which there are ton of civil war battle fields I can tell you right or left you don't want any of that.

[Au165]

I have always laughed at the idea of any civil war at this point. It is actually why I think the 2nd amendment is funny at this point as the founding fathers could never have foreseen what our government and military would become and no well regulated militia today would do anything about it. I'm sure people are going to chime in with various anecdotes about determination, patriotism, etc , but the reality is at best they'd be a nuisance and in reality all the leaders would be taken out by predator drones before it ever got much steam.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2018, 08:40 AM)Au165 Wrote: I have always laughed at the idea of any civil war at this point. It is actually why I think the 2nd amendment is funny at this point as the founding fathers could never have foreseen what our government and military would become and no well regulated militia today would do anything about it. I'm sure people are going to chime in with various anecdotes about determination, patriotism, etc , but the reality is at best they'd be a nuisance and in reality all the leaders would be taken out by predator drones before it ever got much steam.

Not commenting on the idea of a civil war or on the idiocy of Alex Jones, but I see this argument made by people all the time and it could not be more erroneous.  A human with a rifle is still the best weapon system on the planet.  If you doubt this then kindly explain how the Taliban still exists without a single helicopter or tank?  How did the Viet Cong stand up to the best military in the world?  Unless a military is willing to engage in wholesale slaughter, i.e. purging an area of human life, there is no way to account for partisans within the population.  Most military hardware is designed to deal with the armies of other nations.  But conquering and holding territory is solely the purview of the infantry and until infantry have body armor impervious to small arms then they are on close to equal footing to a civilian with a gun, especially a well trained one.

Trust me, any military historian would scoff at the idea that a modern military has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

[Au165]

(07-03-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not commenting on the idea of a civil war or on the idiocy of Alex Jones, but I see this argument made by people all the time and it could not be more erroneous.  A human with a rifle is still the best weapon system on the planet.  If you doubt this then kindly explain how the Taliban still exists without a single helicopter or tank?  How did the Viet Cong stand up to the best military in the world?  Unless a military is willing to engage in wholesale slaughter, i.e. purging an area of human life, there is no way to account for partisans within the population.  Most military hardware is designed to deal with the armies of other nations.  But conquering and holding territory is solely the purview of the infantry and until infantry have body armor impervious to small arms then they are on close to equal footing to a civilian with a gun, especially a well trained one.

Trust me, any military historian would scoff at the idea that a modern military has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

Yea, this was the response I was expecting. You can believe that if it makes you feel better, I just know based off what I see through my work with military contractors that no group here has any chance what so ever to be more than a nuisance (resist for a while). The government has facial recognition software so good that it can pick you out of crowds of thousands of people using the cameras on the streets, cell phones, and traffic lights, etc. in seconds. Our government is actually better equipped to fight a war here more so than any other place in the world due to their infrastructure of tech here to easily find and eliminate targets. This tech doesn't get rolled out for normal police investigations because it is expensive to use the cloud computing resources required, but if the federal government wanted to find someone today they could within the hour. This doesn't even include the fleet of satellites and drones that would be unleashed here constantly surveying looking for targets if this was the most important issues at hand. You can't use history to compare because no time in history has the U.S. ever needed to apply it's full attention to a front for self preservation like would be required in this scenario. Between technology and focus, there is no historical comparison to even begin to use as an example of a similar situation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2018, 09:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, this was the response I was expecting. You can believe that if it makes you feel better, I just know based off what I see through my work with military contractors that no group here has any chance what so ever to be more than a nuisance (resist for a while). The government has facial recognition software so good that it can pick you out of crowds of thousands of people using the cameras on the streets, cell phones, and traffic lights, etc. in seconds. Our government is actually better equipped to fight a war here more so than any other place in the world due to their infrastructure of tech here to easily find and eliminate targets. This tech doesn't get rolled out for normal police investigations because it is expensive to use the cloud computing resources required, but if the federal government wanted to find someone today they could within the hour. This doesn't even include the fleet of satellites and drones that would be unleashed here constantly surveying looking for targets if this was the most important issues at hand. You can't use history to compare because no time in history has the U.S. ever needed to apply it's full attention to a front for self preservation like would be required in this scenario. Between technology and focus, there is no historical comparison to even begin to use as an example of a similar situation.

Even if I grant you every single one of your points, which I won't and I don't think anyone with military experience would, it still doesn't account for the will of the military to turn their weapons on their own people.  If you think there would be blind acceptance of such a situation then I don't know what to tell you.  As for making me feel better, it doesn't.  Such a scenario would be horrible.

[Arturo Bandini]

And he will say on july 5th that if the civil war didn't start it is because he spoiled the conspiracy.

Bet on it.

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not commenting on the idea of a civil war or on the idiocy of Alex Jones, but I see this argument made by people all the time and it could not be more erroneous.  A human with a rifle is still the best weapon system on the planet.  If you doubt this then kindly explain how the Taliban still exists without a single helicopter or tank?  How did the Viet Cong stand up to the best military in the world?  Unless a military is willing to engage in wholesale slaughter, i.e. purging an area of human life, there is no way to account for partisans within the population.  Most military hardware is designed to deal with the armies of other nations.  But conquering and holding territory is solely the purview of the infantry and until infantry have body armor impervious to small arms then they are on close to equal footing to a civilian with a gun, especially a well trained one.

Trust me, any military historian would scoff at the idea that a modern military has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

Interesting theory.

These two say you're wrong.  

I seriously doubt the army would lose that "war" but they would also take it seriously enough to "fear" an armed populace without "fear" of losing given they supply of weapons and ammo versus the enemy's. 

But I can see a scenario where pockets of insurgents continue to cause trouble much like ISIS does for an extended period of time.

[Au165]

(07-03-2018, 09:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Even if I grant you every single one of your points, which I won't and I don't think anyone with military experience would, it still doesn't account for the will of the military to turn their weapons on their own people.  If you think there would be blind acceptance of such a situation then I don't know what to tell you.  As for making me feel better, it doesn't.  Such a scenario would be horrible.

In context to this thread, and my original point here, an uprising to over throw the government would be at hand. In that sense the military is fighting "rebels" not their people. Obviously the circumstances of the rebellion would play a role, however they literally did this very thing in the civil war so it isn't without precedent in some sense. 

It would be horrible, I agree with that. 

[Beaker]

(07-03-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: explain how the Taliban still exists without a single helicopter or tank?  How did the Viet Cong stand up to the best military in the world?  

Rules of engagement and unofficial support from other governments.