"I am a ten year army vet who served in Iraq and Kosovo. Right now I am in school doing what I should have done 15 years ago, get an education. After getting out of the army I learned about how corrupt our government has become. Now I spend my free time arguing with class mates and other people I run into in the hopes I can wake them up too."
This is the image that went along with the original post:
I will have some brief comments, and I invite yours, at the other end.
October 6, 2009 at 17:27:46
A quick look at how civil war here in America would be a very bad idea.By foxholeatheist
Recently many individuals and groups have started talking about another civil war in America. These people are not just from one ideology nor are they from obscure fringe groups. State Governors and elected representatives are some of the people calling for open warfare in America. As a soldier I was sent to combat zones in Iraq and Kosovo where open civil war was happening. I am writing this because American civilians have no idea what open warfare is. Before someone makes the first move and starts something that cannot be undone I think we all need to know what life would be like in our hometowns in the event of war.
To start with civil war would not be between two well defined groups. There would be no less than three groups in any one area and dozens in some areas. The federal government would be the third party in any armed conflict. At the beginning of civil war there would be martial law. The federal government would actively kill and imprison all persons not a member of the armed forces that participated in combat. Because of the degradation of our constitution the federal government no longer has any legal restraints. The President, whomever that person may be, has dictatorial powers because of such things as directive 51.
For those who think they would join any side in a civil war know this: When your enemies find out who you are everyone you know and care about would be in danger. All non combatants would also be in danger of death. Your enemies will kill everyone connected to you. This means you mom working at the local grocery store, your sons and daughters at grade school, or your grandparents at their home would all be targets for assassination. Before picking up arms to solve our problems remember that you will be putting all the people you know at risk of death.
Do not think that civil war would be limited to rifles. The only thing America actually produces is weapons of mass destruction. This includes mortars, grenades, rockets, land mines and the deadliest chemical weapons on the planet. We also have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. This means when your mom goes to work your enemies will bomb and mortar the building she works in. Your child's school will have the same fate. Know that if you survive any length of time you will see everyone you know die if there is civil war.
Some State Governors think they can simply secede from the union without bloodshed. This is a ridiculous delusion. If a state legislation does this there would be instant civil war. On every military installation across the globe American soldiers would kill each other overnight. Post commanders would have to detainee and execute all those not aligned with their own ideology. This means if your post commander is a republican all those soldiers known to be liberals would be executed. Liberal commanders would do the same to republicans.
The next thing to think about is the duration of the conflict. Simply put you will never see the end of it. If you live out your normal life and die of old age you will still not see the end of civil war. In the event of civil war America would never recover. There would never again be a union of 50 states. Instead, our descendants would have several different nations just like Western Europe does.
Let us not forget our large stockpile of nuclear weapons. How long would it take for a conservative faction to nuke San Francisco or Seattle? How long would it take a mentally disturbed liberal to nuke parts of Texas and Alaska? Scarred and war weary soldiers will use whatever weapons they have at hand. So if you still want civil war in America remember that we have several hundred nuclear weapons to play with.
My whole point of this is that if you want to fix America then start restoring the things that made America in the first place. These things are the Constitution and the rule of law. There is no such thing as a unified people. We are all different from one another. The only thing that makes any nation is a constitution. The only civil society is the one that recognizes universal human rights. The only free nation is the one that obeys the rule of law. If you really want to fix America restore these things. This means voting.
The Foxholeatheist
I think I understand what our lefty friend is trying to get at, but to my mind, his scenario is flawed as well as his conclusions. Voting when you're in a permanent minority yields nothing but false hopes. No one sane wants a civil war. There are worse alternatives, like permanent servitude for our children to the collectivist oligarchy.
That's all the time I can spare for analysis. Feel free to pick it apart.
Mike
III
20 comments:
So if we are willing to accept his theory, and still think the fight is worth fighting. What does that say?
Jason
III
I don't care much for his analysis either. Or his image.
I prefer this image:
http://www.ng.mil/resources/photo_gallery/heritage/images/4thalabama.jpg
I also the analysis I've set forth in my own blog the last two years.
The so-called "Civil War" was never really about slavery, but always about liberty. And because this is so, Northern and Southern patriots are finding each other these days, slavery having now been happily consigned to the dustbin of history. That institution out of the way, the issues are now clear to us. And we find ourselves on the same side.
As the Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Soloviev said through a character in one of his novels:
PRINCE. What? You seem to doubt that war and militarism are absolute and utter evils, of which
humanity must rid itself at any cost and immediately? You doubt that complete and immediate
suppression of this barbarism would in any case result in a triumph for reason and good ?
MR. Z. I am positively certain of quite the opposite.
PRINCE. That is, of what?
MR. Z. Of the fact that war is not an absolute evil, and that peace is not an absolute good; or,
putting it in a simpler way, that it is possible to have and we do have sometimes such a thing as
a good war, and that it is also possible to have and we do have sometimes an evil peace.
Which is to say, "civil war" is not always an evil.
The so-called "Civil War" was never really about slavery, but always about liberty. And because this is so, Northern and Southern patriots are finding each other these days.
Right on, and......
"......The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
H. L. Mencken
I'll leave the fisking of the unsupported assertions to others. What I want to point out are the comments left at the original website.
There was hardly any mention of Right Wing Extremists, and nothing about us Gun Nuts. Instead there were repetitious condemnations of "corporations" and the "elites". There is far more partisan venom over at HuffPo in the comments section whenever one of the anti-gun turds relaxes his sphincter all over the page.
Bottom line? These guys don't have a clue. Yeah, they remember the 60's poster "War is bad for children and other living things" (If you're over 40 or so, you remember that poster), but beyond that, they're wandering around in the dark.
These are exactly the folks who would not only start something they can't finish, they don't even know that they don't know.
NO FORT SUMPTERS!!!! There's no need; one of these brainiacs will do it for us.
Whether it was worth it will be determined by those still standing afterwards. If I'm one of them, I'll be happy to debate it then. The storm clouds are on the horizon, I'm just waiting to see if the winds are going to shift. Already secured for heavy seas.
Recently people are talking about civil war? Recently ..... Jesus where have you been pinhead. So if I am to believe this nimrod someone will Nuke the local McDonalds cause my sister works there? Idiot ... go crawl under a rock ... when it starts someone will come and kick you out from under it and put you out of your misery....
How in highest hell does this guy leap to the conclusion that US soldiers stationed abroad would "kill each other overnight" upon some state seceding from the union?
Also, loved that not-so-subtle plug for "universal human rights" towards the end. Newspeak for whatever Christmas wishlist of entitlements dreamt up by some stoned Sociology major. Or, in short, Collectivism.
Probably six months after the logistics breaks down, those nukes will be worthless. They require a lot of maintenance, and hard to find materials. Also, I doubt the majority of them are deliverable on American cities. Most are missile warheads, and would probalby require expensive reprogramming to be able to do that(they were made to shoot at Russia after all).
Most will have a pretty good leave-well-enough-alone attitude, and will not actively target civilians, especially several states away.
Foxholeatheist has also, to my way of thinking, fallen for the Napoleonic paradigm, that any future civil war would be fought like the last one, force on force and in the open, where battlefield weapons can be brought to bear.
In the conflict coming, the other side will be able to use heavy, destructive weapons like armor and air strikes in populated areas of the United States, OR it will be able to retain the illusion of legitimacy, but not both. The counterinsurgency strategies developed in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be as useful here. Even tie-dyed lefties will squawk when it's THEIR doors being kicked in and their families being shot for running a checkpoint. Against an enemy that has no force structure to penetrate, that takes and keeps the initiative in operations, does not fight the way their opponents want them to fight, and has vulnerable targets galore, the government is at a severe disadvantage, and they know it.
If it was open war fare does he think we are stupid enough to send our kids to school? Does he honestly think people will still go to work?
I can think of two "civil wars" that were, yes, bloody, but not multi-generational or apcolyptic.
#1, The American Revolutionary War. If civil war is not the answer, then we would still be ruled by the royalty of England.
#2, The American Civil War (or, War Between the States, for all you'all Southerners).
I don't have the time to fisk or discuss further, as I should be repairing.
B Woodman
III-per
At the risk of being seen as overly-optimistic, I think the next "civil war" will be much like the first in its initiation, but much different in its termination.
R E Lee is reputed to have said, years after Appomattox, that had he known what would be the result of surrendering he would have sent his men into the woods without uniforms to fight on as irregulars (where have I heard that term before?).
Had he done that, we would have seen here what we are seeing in Iraq and AfPak: 4-to-12 deaths per day. Every day. For 145 years.
There isn't a polity on earth that could survive that. THAT civil war would have ended around 1880 with the "Union" offering the South safe passage out. THIS civil war will end the same way.
Splitting this country into two pieces, one collectivist, the other individualist, will result in world peace because the collectivist chunk won't have the muscle to be the world's policeman, and the individualist chunk won't have the desire.
My first post here.
I'm no soldier, but I believe soldiers when they say, "War is hell." No one should venture into war lightly and I don't criticize this author for trying to avoid one. What the author fails to mention, however, is that war happens because things become so polarized that people cannot continue traveling the same path together. This "split" happens in organizations and churches, as well as in our societies from time to time. War is undesirable, but it is also something that unifies a country.
When peaceful attempts to create unity fail one side then has to be beaten into submission to regain unity of the whole. That is war. I'm sure we've all heard the saying, "War doesn't determine who is right, but only who is left." Whomever is left after the war decides what path will be followed and few remain from the opposition to resist. The country, therefore, regains unity and that is a healthy thing.
During Colonial times the polarity between people was the idea of being under British rule. Some didn't mind at all, but others simply could not continue down that path any longer. They fought and independence was won. Like it or not, we all became part of a free country.
The same can be said of Civil War. Like it or not, the Confederates lost and we regained unity as a country.
The same can be said of our country today. Our society is so polarized that we cannot retain unity as a whole any longer. Some are resisting this new path we have been treading over the past several years, especially under
Obama.
History and logic tells us we are ripe for another civil war right now. We should learn from history and somehow find a way to gain unity without war, but we aren't capable of doing that. Passions and personal beliefs simply run too high to surrender. Whomever wins that war will decide if we continue on a path of Marxism or one of freedom. When the war is over we will tread that path with unity since there will be very few left to protest.
Those willing to engage in war would rather be dead than continue down a path they cannot follow. Freedom is worth the cost, even when the cost involves human lives. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't think the left is quite as committed to their cause as freedom-loving people in America. I suspect we may soon find out if they don't stop treading this path we are on today. I say this not as a personal threat against anyone, but merely an observation based on history which often repeats itself when we don't learn lessons from it.
The only way for an enemy to find out who you are is if you are wearing your uniform and your political allegiance in plain sight.
You CAN'T use conventional tactics of war against an enemy who is invisible, does not wear uniforms, and are always on the move.
Colonel "Bloody Ban" Tarleton thought he was ruthless enough. yet, he still couldn't prevent most of his Tory Green troopers from being gunned down or knifed down by ghosts during the South Carolina campaign.
If we are so unfortunate as to have another civil war, it won't be the Zouves versus Zouves this time. Nor would it even be the US versus the NVA. The NVA wore uniforms. Patriot fighters fighting to protect their homes would not fall for such foolishness. And talking about heavy weapons like mortars and missiles: These things are not controlled by artificial intelligence. They are all controlled by human operators. And if you could go back in time and ask General Cornwallis, he would probably tell you that his field guns at Guilford Courthouse was of little use after his gunners had a little run-in with the over-the-mountain men with their "cursed twisted guns".
These comments reflect the kind of clear thinking and determination that are necessary to the victorious warrior; because every martial arts teacher I ever studied under always taught that the discipline of the mind was the first key tp victory, whatever the circumstances.
and in case that lunatic who wrote the original article is correct about anything, I'm having body armor and helmets fitted for my dogs.
The History Channel 1.5 hr documentary, "The Art of War: Sun Tzu" is well worth watching and follows in the vein of several of the above comments. Analyzes WW2, Gettysburg and Vietnam in light of the maneuver warfare Sun Tzu advocated. Excellent graphics (like "The 300")
http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=104545&v=history_dvds-and-books_pre-orders
I think everyone on both sides of the issue agree, we do not want war. What they don't understand is the fact that we consider servitude a much worse fate.
Weaver III
It would be very difficult for an organized side, led by civilian edicts, to defeat a shadowy opponent with no clear leadership whatsoever. An organization without organization can only be stopped by near total defeat or all its members.
No target = no hit. (Unless the bastards carpet bomb, or some equivalent.)
On the other hand, where the enemy's targets are clearly defined, and tactically touchable, the asymmetric losses he suffers are demoralizing, crippling and eventually, mortal.
Feel free to pick it apart. Thanks Mike I will.
Our lefty friend has done us a favor showing how they think and how little thinking they do.
How they "think".
"When your enemies find out who you are everyone you know and care about would be in danger. All non combatants would also be in danger of death. Your enemies will kill everyone connected to you. This means you mom working at the local grocery store, your sons and daughters at grade school, or your grandparents at their home would all be targets for assassination".
How we must respond.
HPL said...
"And by our not behaving like Godless communist bastards, we will have and keep the moral high ground and will keep our own humanity while we kick their asses.
George Washington and his men did not rape and murder the women and children of loyalist scum.
When the Hessian mercenaries raped and pillages New Jersey, the patriots did not retaliate by raping loyalist women and girls."
Still, there needs to be some clear rules of engagement for our side, set down by leadership, lest we become what we fight against.
Thanks HPL you are a blessing.
How little they think.
"We also have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons."
Google "world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons" see what the result is.
Given the nature of China's nuclear strategy. It is similar to late 60's early 70's U.S. strategy and it has a strong defensive advantage. We may be in third place. Don't plan on lefty figuring this out ever, it takes an understanding of simple math.
Dimwit lefty again.
"The only thing America actually produces is weapons of mass destruction. This includes mortars, grenades, rockets, land mines and the deadliest chemical weapons on the planet."
I have in the past mentioned that I am an Industrial Designer.
Every time I hear someone repeat this crap I just want to beat them. The fact that I am not in jail is Proof of my self control and the number of potential witnesses in the room.
Modern U.S. production is not confined to large factories. Thanks partly to the old GM noticing that during union strikes the parts from small suppliers would keep showing up on time. Usually higher quality too because the small producers had little to no union "workers".
Some studies indicate that the U.S. manufacturing capability is as large or larger than WWII levels. And massively more efficient. It is hard to count small manufacturing operations. Particularly one or two man operations. One "factory" might contain many producers of unrelated items. I have seen this in person and it was a surprise!
This offers us an advantage in that decentralized production of war materials has at times outpaced the training of personnel most notably in WWII Germany. A couple of notable examples being the Panzerfaust and the Focke-Wulf fighters.
Often things not built here were designed and engineered here. Even when they say made in China or Japan.
Oh and the deadliest chemical weapons on the planet. Russian not U.S. last I knew but this may have changed. The North Koreans and Iran have been using Humans as test subjects so they may have jumped into the lead. I am very sad to say. Particularly because of how and that this "advance" was achieved.
rexxhead. I must disagree with your theory. "Splitting this country into two pieces, one collectivist, the other individualist, will result in world peace because the collectivist chunk won't have the muscle to be the world's policeman, and the individualist chunk won't have the desire."
The historical model is that when a dominant power leaves the scene more war is the result. But we would agree, the individualist chunk won't have the desire. Nor should we if it is not in our national interest.
If we aren't wasting time on things not in our interest we would have more resources for national defense.
I am sorry I couldn't catch this post when it was fresh.
My response to this was the following...http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/10/07/secession/
Btw I am on Oped news as well occasionally- when I can sneak one in there.
Post a Comment