Another Civil War is possible in America ...

It is a reactionary statement. It is tinfoily. And my GOD the horror of it would be unseen in world history. But it is becoming more possible everyday. I originally posted something here from Crooks and Liars, just a passing reference:
"Glenn Reynolds links to a comment threatening civil war in the US."

On that page it was:
" There is one aspect about Haditha that seems to be ignored by everybody.

Our press and the anti-American left both in this country and outside of it has been reporting "Hadithas" over and over again over the last three years.

Time and time again our friends have accused us of every possible atrocity that there is to the point that internationally people are already able to believe this or the 9/11 stuff or all the rest.

Because of this, internationally it is totally irrelevant if the Marines actually violated the rules of war. Our foes are going to say that we've done things if we do them or not, so the only people that it really matters to will be; the people killed (and family) and the people in our own country who support the military.

The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say "we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep". At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not.

That is a fate that I don't wish on any of us."

That is a warning shot. A frightening statement, made by a person who had only yet begun to comprehend the horror of his words.

But I have been expecting them.

For years now, ever since I saw a completely bogus series of posts, a complete fraud, a hoax like no other, I have worried secretly.

"John Titor" a fictional "person" supposedly traveled through time to ours to "warn of an impending civil war."

While there are a few people who actually bought into this garbage for a while, they eventually lost all trust in this fiction of one man's imagination when the 2006 Olympics were held. This directly and completely invalidated the fictional story, that had up to that time only been lacking credibility because of the claim "Mr. Titor" had used a "time machine."

The most important part of this whole series of fictional posts, was not that a man from the future was supposedly warning us about a civil war, but that 1) the author of the fiction thought civil war was possible and 2) Titor's proponents believed it was possible.

This series of fictional posts is like someone saying they died of laughter the joke was so funny, and then later the same day the same person dies while laughing at another joke.

The posts while preposterous and inaccurate do outline a scenario that is becoming more and more likely by the day.

We know from history in both the cases of Ruby Ridge and Waco, that this scenario is possible.

Right now America is facing threat of external terrorism. Al-Qaeda may have operatives in the United States, but their organization is by no means a native one.

We have seen how many liberties have been lost, how distorted our government and principle have become, imagine if Al-Qaeda was American.

Right now, even though it is wrong, a lot of Americans have focused on Arabs and Muslims. This has limited the digital prison of Big Brother to them, but what happens if such distinction cannot be made?

Everyone would be subject to the problems of Arabs and Muslims.

This kind of scenario, wherein radical right-wingers are involved in multiple Ruby Ridge/Waco incidents could lead to this kind of domestic imprisoning.

The problem would either stay as an infrequent series of incidents, used by politicians to gain more and more power, or it could escalate into an all-out civil war. In either scenario, the America we know today, however compromised, would die a quick death.

Like I said before in my earlier and more reactionary post, I don't know how to stop it or if it can be stopped, but as the days go by we may see this divide grow. If Warren Jeffs, the polygamist religious radical is not caught or goes quietly I think it buys us time to stop this horrible thing from happening, but if he goes violently it could be the start of the scenario. If God should exist, and we should be good enough to garner his attention, hopefully he will help us.

Hell, we can't even be civil with each other.

There will be no civil war.

Only anarchy.

They are expecting the breakdown too, hence these secret prisons or whatever they are.

organization. A civil war is assumed to be winnable. Just sayin agent mike, not planning. Sheeit I can barely plan my family budget most of the time.

Nobody is going to fight when American Idol and Survivor is on to watch.

Get a grip on reality please.

I'll believe there will be blood in the streets.

But as long as we got our TV, everything will be fine.

we will be out in the streets.

If you don't know who that is.. just google it. It's been done alright he's just jumping on the ban wagon.

That's all I have to say.

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson

Closing arguments:

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto.

He belonged to the same club, Major Andre did not and was hung. The Whiskey Rebellion was stomped out rather brutally a few years later by the Commander-in-Chief. Nat Turner and John Brown were hung. The classmates at West Point chose sides in 1860 none were hung for treason.

It depends on who you are and the degree of disobedience. I am 100% certain the Republicans I know who go to our local gun club would not challenge me or the other Democrats to a Civil War it has never entered their mind. I sometimes walk out on the firing line comfortable in the knowledge that all guns have been cleared by Democrats and Republicans. Lately the Bushbot's have decidedly cooled off regarding W's merits.

I agree with you and Tom. However, rebellion and resistance does not equate with extreme physical violence. If I recall Jefferson sent a letter and signed his name before he took up a gun.


OOPS I did say more.:hi:

It need not be physical at all. (Unless you send a letter first! :evilgrin:)

I agree with OP. When the OMB starts slashing programs, when the 18 wealthy families win the repeal of the inheritance tax and when oil hit $5/gallon even fundies will awaken to the truth.

Go out into the street this coming weekend. Ask the first 100 people if they are planning on fighting a civil war in the next 18 months. Then come back here and post your findings.

nt

Fought not with guns but with words and feelings.
The hatred, animosity, the division.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1332450

This could spin out of control quickly.

Most Americans don't even vote, but they're going to fight a civil war? I just don't see it. We're too lazy & disengaged to bother. Most people just aren't that involved in politics - we seem to mostly care about our cars, our TV's & our routines.

Like I said, it only takes a few nuts to cause the second half of the scenario. It is too entirely possible these nuts could do this, but it doesn't engulf the entire nation, yet we still get to stay at the Big Brother Hilton. <-Where we always are watching out for you, literally.) I am very worried that we don't need a bunch of people to fuck it up, but only a few.

Politicians will use the internal terror as an excuse to take away more liberty and screw up our government so much more (almost impossible) that we will have no chance to escape Big Brother's digital prison.

And that's the scenario I worry about. The apathy could allow a government to go pretty far in removing our civil liberties before anyone really notices that they're gone.

No food, no civil liberties, we were very content in our lives for so long now what throw it away for this jerk, not me, and not for my children either.

it is the few nutties at the edge of the party. Bush is getting power, and I have to admit he is using the Reichstag Fire Decree as a checklist, but he isn't as bad as the nuts who would start the war.

I'm willing to bet most US citizens weren't interested in fighting that war. But, a few powerful people at the top were, and they took the nation with them.

Perhaps someone could examine the French or English Revolutions. You may find those to be more fitting comparisons.

to escape the draft, and in the South, they had to pass a law making it a felony to dodge the draft, so obviously there wasn't unanimous support from those who would actually be doing the fighting.

I'd love to show these swill what democracy looks like.

You need to think about what you are saying. My point in posting this was that I am worried about right-wing nutjobs starting a civil war. I don't want people to start a civil war. In fact starting a civil war is against the law, even threatening starting a civil war is against the law. Trust me, I am deeply worried about this, and have thought about how horrible it would be. So go sit somewhere for a while and think about the implications of "Bring It."

At least at first...

I do however believe that there is very little chance of a civil war in the US. Americans are too lazy. Unless the lights go out for many months and martial law is declared, consider it very unlikely...

These right-wingers that you fear would quickly fall the way of David Koresh if they got too uppity.

MLK brought only major awareness to civil rights. But action was not taken until Watts.

Those on the right are quicker to take up arms. If the situation gets military, it's more than likely the result of action from the radical right.

OTOH, those on the left are quicker to protest, period. One look at the size of liberal vs conservative rallys while the nation was split 50/50 communicates that fact. But liberals don't tend to use guns and bombs. If they get out of control you get riots, not than shootouts or explosions.

But it all starts when people feel they can no longer trust their systems. Our problem now is that NEITHER side trusts our elections. Conservatives fear LIBERALS will take advantage of the Diebold machines. I've heard it said, honest.

We've got to have elections we can trust, otherwise we ALL lose.

the election of Abraham Lincoln was the straw that broke the camels back. If Hilary is elected, it could be the same unfortunate straw.

I think I am going to try explain my analysis of the situation. I have written a number of separate pieces on the past few months, and I think I will try to synthesize them into a single long explanation.

and look what it got him.

I think it was "bring it on" when he said.

Apathy could keep things from becoming violent. However, it might do so by making us all slaves.

OTOH, radical activity may trigger a hopeless bloodbath, for any of several groups.

I think a Civil War is possible, but unlikely as I don't think the current situation will wind up being so stable as to create two clear, even sides. I think riots are more likely, possibly with a large number of participating "sides." The ultimate level and spread of which depend on how far things are allowed (or forced) to deteriorate.

It could also be defused early. JFK said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." Our nations forefathers utilized voting and elections as a means of peaceful revolution, and it works so long as the People have faith in it.

Take away the belief in fair elections, and this nation takes a step towards hell. The last few elections have been highly questionable. Worse, those questions have not been addressed.

That is also the awful thing about Diebold, and why the lack of corrective action is absolutely unforgivable.

:shrug:

Are you counting the organized riots of the 1860s as one?

The Civil War had one of the highest death tolls of any war in the entire history of humanity.

WW2 was the war with the highest death toll in the history of humanity at about 40,000,000. Less than a million died in the American Civil War.

# 62,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)
# 36,000,000 - An Lushan Rebellion (756–763)
# 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century)
# 25,000,000 - Manchu Conquest of Ming China (1616–1644)
# 20,000,000–50,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864)
# 17,000,000 - Timur Lenk's conquests (1370–1405)
# 15,000,000–66,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties) note that the larger number includes Spanish flu deaths
# 10,000,000-25,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1931–1945)
# 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)
# 3,800,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2004)
# 3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
# 3,000,000–8,000,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)
# 2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953)
# 2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)

* 300,000–1,300,000 - First Indochina War (1945–1954)
* 100,000–300,000 - Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
* 1,750,000–2,100,000 - American phase (1960–1973)
* 170,000 - Final phase (1973–1975)
* 175,000–1,150,000 - Secret War (1962–1975)

# 2,000,000–4,000,000 - French Wars of Religion (1562–1598)
# 1,700,000–2,300,000 - Khmer Rouge (1975–1979)
# 1,500,000–2,000,000 - Afghanistan (1979–2001)

* 1,000,000–1,500,000 Soviet invasion (1979–1989)

# 1,300,000–6,100,000 - Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties

* 300,000–3,100,000 before 1937
* 1,000,000–3,000,000 after World War II

# 1,000,000–1,200,000 - Seven Years' War (1756–1763)
# 1,000,000 - Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988)
# 1,000,000 - Sudanese Civil War (1983–2002)
# 1,000,000 - Biafran War (1967–1970)
# 1,000,000 - Aztec conquests (1427–1519)
# 900,000–1,000,000 - Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
# 800,000 - Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
# 558,052 - American Civil War (1861–1865)

Sorry, I was completely and totally off. The only reason I might have an illusion to that effect is that I think it is the war that killed nearly the most if not the most Americans ever. I should denigrate the deaths of people in other wars. It was a very American-Centric statement. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

I was even wrong about the 40,000,000 figure of WW2 I guess.

were far bloodier and violent even than WWII. I'm not attempting in any way to minimize the bloodletting of the Second World War, but the world population was much higher then, and so the proportion of those societies hit by the war was much lower. Thus e.g. the Mongol Wars, Manchu Conquest and the Thirty Years' War that devastated Germany in the 1600's killed a much higher proportion of the population. Ditto for the more recent Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia (almost 10% of the population killed), and also for the US Civil War, which is thought to have killed off up to 3% of the US population at the time if the effects of e.g. disease and the agricultural devastation throughout much of the country is taken into account.

Your original hunch was basically right in spirit-- the US Civil War was an incredibly bloody and furious conflict by US and even by world standards, it was really the first industrialized, mechanized mass war fought among civilian populations.

Could Civil War in the US happen again? I have no doubt that it could. So long as our economy is decent, as people are saying, people are generally too busy with personal gratification to get involved, but a nasty recession or other economic contraction changes things immediately-- all bets would be off. Remember, too, that the Civil War that began in 1861 commenced during a period, if not of prosperity, then at least of relative economic stability in the US-- there was no 19th-century Depression at the time, and *both* sides were Anglo Protestants. Yet despite all these supposed "dampeners," the US had one of bloodiest wars of the 19th century, which does raise some disturbing conclusions.

As others here have written, it takes only a relatively small minority of extremists to start up a conflict, and even if the vast majority are reluctant (as they were in 1861), they get dragged into it in any case. The vast majority in Lebanon did not want a civil war and actually had a decent middle-class standard of living, but the war broke out there, anyway. So it definitely could happen here. I hope it wouldn't and couldn't foresee it, but again, all bets are off if there's a bad recession or an inflationary spiral. With our increasing indebtedness and credit crunch, perhaps that's not nearly as remote a possibility as we'd like to believe.

damn, apparently you spit in China you end up killing a few people. apparently the most gore encrusted parts of the world are China, Vietnam, France, and Russia... oh wait... yeah, that's about right. hmm, makes you think twice about the slight regional flavorings to wine, tea, and vodka, doesn't it?
:puke:

They had better wake up - even polls done here on DU show that a good number (I think more than half) here own guns - and we are supposed to be the "way-left" anti-war folks...

accept the legitimacy of the federal government. When the Dems were in power they wouldn't shut up about "states' rights." (Strange you don't hear that phrase much anymore.) Wingnuts declared war on the U.S. federal government, with Grover Norquist saying they would shrink it down and drown it in a bathtub. The Bush admin is trying to destroy the federal government from within by making all departments ineffective except the military/intelligence/law enforcement departments. The increase in federal spending is mostly in these areas, and the increase in other areas is just a way of siphoning more tax dollars from the chump middle class so it can be transferred to the wealthy and the favored in the form of tax cuts and government contracts.

There used to be a lot of screaming years ago about left-wing subversives, who in actuality never had the power or capability to subvert the federal government. But the Bush junta does, and they're using it. It was great to see today that RFK, Jr. used the word "subvert." "After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004."

in fact rescue itself from the bush regime.

Regime change does not happen from within in a passive, relatively content society.

Think Nazi Germany.

It took outside global intervention to stop Hitler.

It will take NATO in the streets of Washington DC to stop the bush regime. I've said this for 6 years.

You have another 6 -8 years of growing horrors, corruption and atrocities before the regime change takes place.

I say it to get ppl's torches and pitchforks out, but have suceeded w/ less than 1/2. Cognitive Dissonance is the real issue in this country.... it hurts - and we're supposed to always feel GOOD.

:cry: :cry: :puke:

boat, not to challenge, not to stand out...

The USA is a society designed to blend in, fit in, ride the waves, roll with the punches, be compliant, and unwilling. Everyone wants each other to be just like them, and any endeavor towards unique, individual freedom of thought is punched, choked, strangled, pummeled and stomped into submission.

In fact, I imagine that most people in the USA would oppose NATO forcing a regime change.

They'd be happy to have the day off to go shopping at walmart and walmart would sponsor a regime change day sale.

Our Forefathers would be horrified by what has emerged from their Dream.

What will it take to wake up those that are doing exactly what they were taught to do/be?

That is the big question. It is Societal, Psychological, Economical.....

It is the big Question..... few even hear the quandary.

civil war, as we are in the midst of a cold one