Is it already a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

LIke lately seems less and less likely that some kind of civil war won't happen. But I mean has it perhaps already started, just not to the warfare stage yet. IDk what do you all think about this?

I don't see many people wanting to challenge the various systems and institutions that make America how it is.

The lack of choice and meaningful debate should be the biggest warning sign of all, but somehow that's being ignored yet again. What we're seeing now is a bizarre mauve vs lilac debate. Which might be depressing in some ways, but it also means a civil war is highly unlikely. I mean, they're not even considering violet. There simply isn't enough incentive for the vast majority of people to be roused out of compliance and conformity to ask for something that's actually something else, relative to the risks of doing so.

That's my betting, anyway.

The US empire is slowly starting to crumble, as empires always do, because they're ultimately unsustainable. The immediate consequence of that is in-fighting among the powerful, who seek to grab whatever delights remain on the table while avoiding any poison. But the masses are too indoctrinated to be properly upset by the current level of high-level bickering, in my view, as it doesn't really offer any meaningful alternatives beyond the existing shades of s**t. There's a lot of manufactured posturing going on but I can't see it properly boiling over. "Popular opinion" is a tool being wielded and manipulated by the powerful for their own ends, it's not a sign of pending revolution.

I say that as an Englishman, we're well into our post-colonial phase now but still tolerate the same BS from our leaders that we always have. Either because all the alternatives are worse, or because we're all being fooled into believing that's the case - depending on who you believe.

let's say: the warfare stage will be spectacular, given the amounts of ammunition and guns in civil hands. no chance against a military with drones, but spectacular nonetheless.

Because the military would be unchanged and loyal to the sitting president in such a situation? I've heard the U.S. military run scenarios like this all the time, particularly a "red state vs blue state" type civil war. They reckon they would see huge desertion in the armed forces, well over half just walking home to protect their families, many helping themselves to military grade firepower on the way and a sizeable minority staying either to spy or sabotage - not that with such enormous personnel losses the military could really function properly any more.

Wouldn't that most likely balance itself out, though?

Not everyone deserting would support the same side, and indeed many probably wouldn't want to choose a side at all. Protecting friends and family isn't necessarily political until someone else makes it that way. If the situation really escalated into full-blown civil war the remaining armed forces would most likely split into two opposing forces as well, rather than staying as one unified force.

If anything you're supporting the previous post, which is that the only thing it would definitely be, is messy.

I could be wrong but I got the impression shlaifu envisioned a civilian vs military war : guns in civil hands. no chance against a military with drones

Ah yeah.

An armed conflict (as opposed to speeches, marches and flag-waving) might start off that way, but I can't see it staying that simple for very long. Depends how big the first stage was and whether it could be shut down quickly, I suppose. The longer it went on, the more chaotic it would get.

Though I'm still incredibly doubtful that things would ever reach critical mass. The Capitol riots were an attempt at lighting that fuse I suspect (and some elements of the BLM protests, too), but it fizzled out and the moment has gone now IMHO. There's too much at stake for most people to risk it. Yelling at people on the internet is far safer.

I am imaging that the really hi-tech weaponry couldn't be easily "just taken" - I may well be wrong, but in my imagination, drones require stuff like satellite connections etc. to function.

actually, thinking of it - the satellite relais stations in Germany are used for drone strikes in the middle east, but why would the require relais stations if the target is not on the other side of the planet.
So maybe it's possible to turn drones against a "blue" division of the military...

...
...
would that make the red-states army the red army faction, then?

No. People are just playing politics—like always.

We’re not even close to a “civil war.”

Some people would argue politics is always just war by other means.

I'm not sure I agree because that kinda invites the opposite as well.

Well take a peek around and what do we see.
From doing that, have formulated a few possibilities:

Most people just want to have a nice secure life - work, friends, love.
But there are pockets of folks who very much want a civil war.
These folks need an enemy:
they desperately need some "other" to hate, otherwise they don't feel like a real person, because these are not strongly constructed people, psychologically.

The good thing is, left alone - if no one takes the bait - their organizations splinter, they usually turn on and end up fighting each other. But they are dangerous; it's just that fighting them actually strengthens them, because of the psychological geometry. (Sometimes there is no choice.)

I think there is evidence that the current global divide is a contest between the Age of Enlightenment, and the Dark Ages. Because these are two mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

Last edited by Harry Haller on 10 Aug 2021, 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I guess we'll find out if y'all qaeda start taking shots from behind their my pillows in a few days.

Well, they make a better improvised fortification than thing to sleep on.

You've experienced one of those pillows irl?

i spent the afternoon listening to a 4 hour podcast interview with the United Nations special reporter on torture.
He talked about how the incorrect Iraq-WMD connection was info gained through torture, and the guy would have told the CIA anything to make them stop. Then he went on tell of rapes and torture and murder committed by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Obama decided to classify that information rather than prosecute the perpetrators.
He talked about how the rape allegations against Julian Assange were fabricated by a Swedish judge, and how the strategy of the US government works to get him extradicted to the US, and that he would face solitary confinement without any human contact whatsoever there - unloke the solitary confinement he is in now in the UK, where he is allowed occasional visitors.
He has not been on trial, but he has been in solitary confinement for 3 years, after 8 years of being confined to the ecuadorian embassy.
then a bit about refugees, arms trades and organ trade. - and that was just what he had to say about the US and Europe, because Russia and China won't let him anywhere near.

after listening to that interview, I honestly don't know which part of the world could be the "age of enlightenment" part.

No, not actually.