Current Events > In a Civil War part II blue states would dominate.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
SrRd_RacinG 01/28/22 11:26:14 PM #1:	A lot of liberals are actually gun toters; they just don't brandish them as much. And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives. But let's hope it doesn't come to this. --- https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vRn3I4UyDoKyWLC/giphy.gif <cite>SrRd_RacinG posted [p:962169548] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>A lot of liberals are actually gun toters; they just don't brandish them as much. And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives. But let's hope it doesn't come to this. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MegaCamerupt 01/28/22 11:28:00 PM #2:	Conservatives have the military so good luck lol <cite>MegaCamerupt posted [p:962169579] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Conservatives have the military so good luck lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
R1masher 01/28/22 11:29:02 PM #3:	What the fuck lol --- R1R1R1R1R1R1 <cite>R1masher posted [p:962169599] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>What the fuck lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ScazarMeltex 01/28/22 11:29:47 PM #4:	MegaCamerupt posted... Conservatives have the military so good luck lol As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs. --- "If you wish to converse with me define your terms" Voltaire <cite>ScazarMeltex posted [p:962169614] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>MegaCamerupt posted... </cite> <quote>Conservatives have the military so good luck lol</quote>As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirkDiggles 01/28/22 11:30:13 PM #5:	ScazarMeltex posted... As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs. LOL --- Intel 486, Integrated videocard, 16MB RAM, 64MB HD, 3 1/4 inch floppy <cite>DirkDiggles posted [p:962169626] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs.</quote> LOL </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jpenny2 01/28/22 11:31:28 PM #6:	Civil War 2: Electric Bluegaloo --- Fren Code: 2767-3374-3343 \|\| IGN: Penny \|\| TSV: 3067 \|\| Sig NFT I hate sarcasm. I'm also not too fond of irony. \| Permanently banned <cite>jpenny2 posted [p:962169648] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Civil War 2: Electric Bluegaloo </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sabin017 01/28/22 11:31:53 PM #7:	The Fox News people are NY elites anyways regardless of what they espouse on air. --- https://imgur.com/qYZYQ9I.gifv <cite>sabin017 posted [p:962169657] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>The Fox News people are NY elites anyways regardless of what they espouse on air. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Norman_Smiley 01/28/22 11:37:58 PM #8:	Any us civil war 2 would quickly turn to terrorist attacks with little fightin on field. It will be a fight to see who commits the most atrocities, and likely with like 5 or 6 sides fighting. --- http://i.imgur.com/BVBQC.jpg The big wiggle equals ratings. <cite>Norman_Smiley posted [p:962169782] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Any us civil war 2 would quickly turn to terrorist attacks with little fightin on field. It will be a fight to see who commits the most atrocities, and likely with like 5 or 6 sides fighting. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#9	Post #9 was unavailable or deleted.
FortuneCookie 01/28/22 11:44:12 PM #10:	Yeah, no. I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers, but that would end poorly for them. Even if the left were guaranteed to win, it would be an absolute failing for America to resort to violence against itself. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962169918] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, no. I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers, but that would end poorly for them. Even if the left were guaranteed to win, it would be an absolute failing for America to resort to violence against itself. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sackgurl 01/28/22 11:46:22 PM #11:	MegaCamerupt posted... Conservatives have the military so good luck lol not if they secede --- LittleBigPlanet is like merging dress-up with a real game. <cite>Sackgurl posted [p:962169949] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>MegaCamerupt posted... </cite> <quote>Conservatives have the military so good luck lol</quote> not if they secede </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 01/29/22 12:06:54 AM #12:	Sackgurl posted... not if they secede You don't think the military would fracture like last time? Surely some bases would outright fall to the rebels overnight all it would take is for a sizeable enough majority to be on the rebel side. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:962170286] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Sackgurl posted... </cite> <quote>not if they secede</quote> You don't think the military would fracture like last time? Surely some bases would outright fall to the rebels overnight all it would take is for a sizeable enough majority to be on the rebel side. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hayame Zero 01/29/22 12:09:25 AM #13:	SrRd_RacinG posted... And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives. That's why the South started losing in the first place. They had thousands of deserters a day towards the end due to no resources, and even in Richmond, they were resorting to eating their clothes --- ...I think I'm done here... <cite>Hayame Zero posted [p:962170325] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>SrRd_RacinG posted... </cite> <quote>And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives.</quote>That's why the South started losing in the first place. They had thousands of deserters a day towards the end due to no resources, and even in Richmond, they were resorting to eating their clothes </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ultimate reaver 01/29/22 12:10:18 AM #14:	Civil war in modern times would end the moment the seceding faction realized that supply chains would be completely fucked and they could no longer go down the street and get some cool ranch Doritos and a 60 pack of coke from wal mart on a whim --- I pray god will curse the writer, as the writer has cursed the world with this beautiful, stupendous creation, terrible in its simplicity, irresistible in truth <cite>ultimate reaver posted [p:962170350] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Civil war in modern times would end the moment the seceding faction realized that supply chains would be completely fucked and they could no longer go down the street and get some cool ranch Doritos and a 60 pack of coke from wal mart on a whim </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 01/29/22 12:10:56 AM #15:	ScazarMeltex posted... As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs. Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:962170360] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs.</quote> Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 01/29/22 12:19:12 AM #16:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking. Hell we only send a fraction of our forces anyways. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:962170502] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Lorenzo_2003 posted... </cite> <quote>Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking.</quote> Hell we only send a fraction of our forces anyways. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thronedfire2 01/29/22 12:20:38 AM #17:	ScazarMeltex posted... As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs. lmao --- I could see you, but I couldn't hear you You were holding your hat in the breeze Turning away from me In this moment you were stolen... <cite>thronedfire2 posted [p:962170527] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>As if the US military hasn't spend the last 60 years getting fucked by dudes in pajamas and sandals carrying AKs.</quote> lmao </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smackems 01/29/22 12:24:57 AM #18:	Lot of y'all sound like you want it to come to that --- Common sense thought my last sig was stupid - some dude <cite>Smackems posted [p:962170584] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Lot of y'all sound like you want it to come to that </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gamer167 01/29/22 12:25:29 AM #19:	Idk, conservatives got majority of the active military, veterans, police, firefighters/first responders in general. Then you got all the wannabe weekend Rambos as well. Liberals aint got much to work with. I mean look at most of the liberal users on CE, these aint fighting men. Anytime a topic about a draft or going to war comes up most of them say theyd leave the U.S. before theyd fight for it. Conservatives are rock headed enough to dig in and fight. <cite>gamer167 posted [p:962170590] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Idk, conservatives got majority of the active military, veterans, police, firefighters/first responders in general. Then you got all the wannabe weekend Rambos as well. Liberals aint got much to work with. I mean look at most of the liberal users on CE, these aint fighting men. Anytime a topic about a draft or going to war comes up most of them say theyd leave the U.S. before theyd fight for it. Conservatives are rock headed enough to dig in and fight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlBundy33 01/29/22 12:26:31 AM #20:	Not really, the blue states would need safe spaces because seeing grass triggered them --- Shoe Salesman. Four Touchdowns, one game. This post may contain my opinion. My opinions may be offensive, deal with it <cite>AlBundy33 posted [p:962170617] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Not really, the blue states would need safe spaces because seeing grass triggered them </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jsb0714 01/29/22 12:30:07 AM #21:	SrRd_RacinG posted... And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives. Huh? <cite>jsb0714 posted [p:962170684] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>SrRd_RacinG posted... </cite> <quote>And plus, Democrats generally have large media behind them so they have the money and resources to fight conservatives.</quote>Huh? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#22	Post #22 was unavailable or deleted.
XxKrebsxX 01/29/22 2:40:10 AM #23:	Im more interested in how the world would react in this scenario. Russia would immediately begin ass fucking Eastern Europe. China would take advantage and finally deal with their Taiwan problem. Also, goodbye South Korea. <cite>XxKrebsxX posted [p:962172632] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Im more interested in how the world would react in this scenario. Russia would immediately begin ass fucking Eastern Europe. China would take advantage and finally deal with their Taiwan problem. Also, goodbye South Korea. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:11:03 AM #24:	XxKrebsxX posted... Im more interested in how the world would react in this scenario. Russia would immediately begin ass fucking Eastern Europe. China would take advantage and finally deal with their Taiwan problem. Also, goodbye South Korea. You're absolutely right. But I doubt Americans who want another civil war care what happens to the rest of the world so long as they own the opposition. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178189] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>XxKrebsxX posted... </cite> <quote>Im more interested in how the world would react in this scenario. Russia would immediately begin ass fucking Eastern Europe. China would take advantage and finally deal with their Taiwan problem. Also, goodbye South Korea.</quote> You're absolutely right. But I doubt Americans who want another civil war care what happens to the rest of the world so long as they own the opposition. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Femputer 01/29/22 11:12:26 AM #25:	FortuneCookie posted... I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers Oh? --- Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world? He/him <cite>Femputer posted [p:962178218] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote> I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers</quote>Oh? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 01/29/22 11:14:50 AM #26:	Red states touch grass more --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:962178258] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Red states touch grass more </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:16:58 AM #27:	Femputer posted... Oh? I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation. Lemme revise that post: I know a lot of people on the left are begrudgingly resolved to defend themselves in the face of tyranny; willing to take lives only when forced to by the science-hating, women-hating, minority-hating, fearful, aggressive, stupid, unwashed neo-nazi herds storming the gates of freedom and intellectual tranquility. And I know furthermore that these righteous beings would never enjoy defeating the enemy. None on the left would pleasure in killing for their only hatred is for the conflict itself. That better? <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178300] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Femputer posted... </cite> <quote>Oh?</quote> I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation. Lemme revise that post: I know a lot of people on the left are begrudgingly resolved to defend themselves in the face of tyranny; willing to take lives only when forced to by the science-hating, women-hating, minority-hating, fearful, aggressive, stupid, unwashed neo-nazi herds storming the gates of freedom and intellectual tranquility. And I know furthermore that these righteous beings would never enjoy defeating the enemy. None on the left would pleasure in killing for their only hatred is for the conflict itself. That better? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Femputer 01/29/22 11:19:40 AM #28:	FortuneCookie posted... I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation. Lemme revise that post --- Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world? He/him <cite>Femputer posted [p:962178341] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote>I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation. Lemme revise that post</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:21:12 AM #29:	Fuck off. I won't fall into "one side invariably good, one side invariably bad or you're secretly the enemy" bullshit. That's grade-school level propaganda. Yes, the right is collectively worse. They have literal neo nazis among them. That doesn't mean the left are invariably saints. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178367] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Fuck off. I won't fall into "one side invariably good, one side invariably bad or you're secretly the enemy" bullshit. That's grade-school level propaganda. Yes, the right is collectively worse. They have literal neo nazis among them. That doesn't mean the left are invariably saints. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 01/29/22 11:22:16 AM #30:	FortuneCookie posted... I won't fall into "one side invariably good, one side invariably bad or you're secretly the enemy" bullshit. That's grade-school level propaganda. FortuneCookie posted... I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation. --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:962178388] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote>I won't fall into "one side invariably good, one side invariably bad or you're secretly the enemy" bullshit. That's grade-school level propaganda.</quote> FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote>I'm sorry. All bad things are on the right side of the political equation.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:24:28 AM #31:	That was sarcasm. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178439] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>That was sarcasm. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:25:12 AM #32:	The people are who say "don't call the left out on anything" are the exact people who need to be called out. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178450] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>The people are who say "don't call the left out on anything" are the exact people who need to be called out. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 01/29/22 11:25:23 AM #33:	You're a mad cookie --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:962178455] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>You're a mad cookie </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 01/29/22 11:25:34 AM #34:	Why go to war? Just have all blue states secede. The red states trying to be self-sufficient without our money would kill them without warfare. They literally drink off of our money and send the country into a spiralling hell. Just let them be their own country and see how fast they collapse. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:962178457] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Why go to war? Just have all blue states secede. The red states trying to be self-sufficient without our money would kill them without warfare. They literally drink off of our money and send the country into a spiralling hell. Just let them be their own country and see how fast they collapse. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 01/29/22 11:25:34 AM #35:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] The only correct take in all of this. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:962178458] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> The only correct take in all of this. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ScazarMeltex 01/29/22 11:27:22 AM #36:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking. Hence my point. Yeah, we killed the fuck out of the NVA and the VC. But show me Saigon on a map. Same with Afghanistan. The Taliban is in control of it. Warfare isn't about kill ratios per dollar spent though and the outcomes of American armed conflict since Vietnam reflects that. Now think about that in comparison to a possible American civil war. Assuming of course that it breaks down at a State level like the last one (which it won't). In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan there was very little concern about civilian casualties, or property damage. It wasn't our land or our people so we basically said fuck em. Especially Vietnam, the rules were different for Iraq and Afghanistan but we still killed a shitload of civilians and did tons of infrastructure damage. So considering that, it makes it even worse if you are fighting on American soil. You are way less likely to shell or bomb the fuck out of a city because you want as much of it intact. Because your goal is to put it under your control and any damage you do, you'll have to fix. Plus the people doing so might have friends or family in it which is bad for morale. Like really fucking bad. Which means rules of engagement and use of heavy equipment will be even more restricted. Warfare is a whole different game now than it was in the 1860s and people don't seem to understand that. Plus any American civil conflict will likely break down into sectarian violence sanctioned by a right wing state against any dissenters, mostly perpetrated by police. If it's bad enough that break into open civil conflict it will look more like Syria or the Chinese Warlord period of the 20s, with half a dozen or more differing militias fighting it out. --- "If you wish to converse with me define your terms" Voltaire <cite>ScazarMeltex posted [p:962178495] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Lorenzo_2003 posted... </cite> <quote>Dude, thats not even remotely true. Seriously, the combat stats arent even close. But of course wars arent necessarily won by the side that does the most ass kicking.</quote>Hence my point. Yeah, we killed the fuck out of the NVA and the VC. But show me Saigon on a map. Same with Afghanistan. The Taliban is in control of it. Warfare isn't about kill ratios per dollar spent though and the outcomes of American armed conflict since Vietnam reflects that. Now think about that in comparison to a possible American civil war. Assuming of course that it breaks down at a State level like the last one (which it won't). In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan there was very little concern about civilian casualties, or property damage. It wasn't our land or our people so we basically said fuck em. Especially Vietnam, the rules were different for Iraq and Afghanistan but we still killed a shitload of civilians and did tons of infrastructure damage. So considering that, it makes it even worse if you are fighting on American soil. You are way less likely to shell or bomb the fuck out of a city because you want as much of it intact. Because your goal is to put it under your control and any damage you do, you'll have to fix. Plus the people doing so might have friends or family in it which is bad for morale. Like really fucking bad. Which means rules of engagement and use of heavy equipment will be even more restricted. Warfare is a whole different game now than it was in the 1860s and people don't seem to understand that. Plus any American civil conflict will likely break down into sectarian violence sanctioned by a right wing state against any dissenters, mostly perpetrated by police. If it's bad enough that break into open civil conflict it will look more like Syria or the Chinese Warlord period of the 20s, with half a dozen or more differing militias fighting it out. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 11:44:23 AM #37:	Unsugarized_Foo posted... You're a mad cookie Yeah, I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. That's part of the bullshit of politics. An accusation can be thrown at you with something as simple as an emoji and then it's up to you to jump through hoops to prove you're not what you were accused of being. The day I keep my mouth shut for the greater good is the day I die. I will always call out members of my faith who use religion to hurt people. I will always call out bigots who claim to represent my ethnic group. And I will always call out dirt on both sides of the political equation -- even if one side is objectively worse than the other. I don't believe in the "greater good." If someone on the left is acting like an ass, and my calling them out on it somehow strengths the right, then it's their responsibility not to act like an ass. I won't be frightened into silence with false accusations. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962178890] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Unsugarized_Foo posted... </cite> <quote>You're a mad cookie</quote> Yeah, I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. That's part of the bullshit of politics. An accusation can be thrown at you with something as simple as an emoji and then it's up to you to jump through hoops to prove you're not what you were accused of being. The day I keep my mouth shut for the greater good is the day I die. I will always call out members of my faith who use religion to hurt people. I will always call out bigots who claim to represent my ethnic group. And I will always call out dirt on both sides of the political equation -- even if one side is objectively worse than the other. I don't believe in the "greater good." If someone on the left is acting like an ass, and my calling them out on it somehow strengths the right, then it's their responsibility not to act like an ass. I won't be frightened into silence with false accusations. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Femputer 01/29/22 11:46:44 AM #38:	FortuneCookie posted... Yeah, I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. you said I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers Then went on various long-winded tirades. Get some coffee dude Jesus --- Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world? He/him <cite>Femputer posted [p:962178929] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah, I took the bait hook, line, and sinker.</quote>you said I know a lot of people on the left wish they could go around shooting right-wingers Then went on various long-winded tirades. Get some coffee dude Jesus </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IShall_Run_Amok 01/29/22 11:55:05 AM #39:	The modern American right is way more delusional and pretentious then the moron Confederacy ever was, but American liberalism is so weak-willed that it needs to wear a belt to keep its shirt from falling down. It wouldn't be pretty. --- Everything you love was always woke, and its less woke than it used to be, and that's why its not as good anymore, because its less woke. Also you suck. <cite>IShall_Run_Amok posted [p:962179100] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>The modern American right is way more delusional and pretentious then the moron Confederacy ever was, but American liberalism is so weak-willed that it needs to wear a belt to keep its shirt from falling down. It wouldn't be pretty. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 12:16:44 PM #40:	Did I say all people on the left were that way? Did it hurt your feelings that I implied that not everyone on our side of the political equation is a nicey-nice guy? I would have mentioned right-wingers wanting the same thing, but then I would have been hit with a "both sides" reply. The truth of the matter is that there are people on both sides who would want this conflict -- or who think that they do. It takes two sides to go to war. There wouldn't be talk of a civil war if there weren't people on both sides desiring conflict. <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962179598] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Did I say all people on the left were that way? Did it hurt your feelings that I implied that not everyone on our side of the political equation is a nicey-nice guy? I would have mentioned right-wingers wanting the same thing, but then I would have been hit with a "both sides" reply. The truth of the matter is that there are people on both sides who would want this conflict -- or who think that they do. It takes two sides to go to war. There wouldn't be talk of a civil war if there weren't people on both sides desiring conflict. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Femputer 01/29/22 12:29:58 PM #41:	FortuneCookie posted... Did I say all people on the left were that way? Did it hurt your feelings that I implied that not everyone on our side of the political equation is a nicey-nice guy? I would have mentioned right-wingers wanting the same thing, but then I would have been hit with a "both sides" reply. The truth of the matter is that there are people on both sides who would want this conflict -- or who think that they do. It takes two sides to go to war. There wouldn't be talk of a civil war if there weren't people on both sides desiring conflict. bro --- Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world? He/him <cite>Femputer posted [p:962179874] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>FortuneCookie posted... </cite> <quote>Did I say all people on the left were that way? Did it hurt your feelings that I implied that not everyone on our side of the political equation is a nicey-nice guy? I would have mentioned right-wingers wanting the same thing, but then I would have been hit with a "both sides" reply. The truth of the matter is that there are people on both sides who would want this conflict -- or who think that they do. It takes two sides to go to war. There wouldn't be talk of a civil war if there weren't people on both sides desiring conflict.</quote>bro </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FortuneCookie 01/29/22 12:31:55 PM #42:	Femputer posted... bro Why are you even posting? <cite>FortuneCookie posted [p:962179911] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Femputer posted... </cite> <quote>bro</quote> Why are you even posting? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Femputer 01/29/22 12:35:34 PM #43:	you have me in awe --- Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world? He/him <cite>Femputer posted [p:962179993] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>you have me in awe </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
coolguyjimmy 01/29/22 2:49:12 PM #44:	The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage. Civil Wars don't have that problem. Civil wars are one of the most dangerous and bloody - any country can take part in, especially in modernity - because there's no such thing as collateral damage - everyone's either your ally, or a target. It's why they inevitably lead to atrocities of the worse type in war - 80% of Genocides (from 1955 to 2000) begin with Civil War. You're either with "us", or against "us" - there's no neutral side. <cite>coolguyjimmy posted [p:962183165] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage. Civil Wars don't have that problem. Civil wars are one of the most dangerous and bloody - any country can take part in, especially in modernity - because there's no such thing as collateral damage - everyone's either your ally, or a target. It's why they inevitably lead to atrocities of the worse type in war - 80% of Genocides (from 1955 to 2000) begin with Civil War. You're either with "us", or against "us" - there's no neutral side. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 01/29/22 2:49:55 PM #45:	coolguyjimmy posted... The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage. [citation needed] --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:962183185] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>coolguyjimmy posted... </cite> <quote>The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage.</quote>[citation needed] </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ScazarMeltex 01/29/22 2:58:07 PM #46:	coolguyjimmy posted... The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage. Civil Wars don't have that problem. Civil wars are one of the most dangerous and bloody - any country can take part in, especially in modernity - because there's no such thing as collateral damage - everyone's either your ally, or a target. It's why they inevitably lead to atrocities of the worse type in war - 80% of Genocides (from 1955 to 2000) begin with Civil War. You're either with "us", or against "us" - there's no neutral side. Yes, see my follow up post genius. I also feel it's pretty clear I was being reductionist to the point of hyperbole in my initial post. Also, as Antifar said [citation needed] --- "If you wish to converse with me define your terms" Voltaire <cite>ScazarMeltex posted [p:962183401] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>coolguyjimmy posted... </cite> <quote>The reason America has not done well in these "Wars against people in Pajamas [No - Traditional Desert Wear] and AK47s" is because America tries to minimalist collateral damage. Civil Wars don't have that problem. Civil wars are one of the most dangerous and bloody - any country can take part in, especially in modernity - because there's no such thing as collateral damage - everyone's either your ally, or a target. It's why they inevitably lead to atrocities of the worse type in war - 80% of Genocides (from 1955 to 2000) begin with Civil War. You're either with "us", or against "us" - there's no neutral side.</quote>Yes, see my follow up post genius. I also feel it's pretty clear I was being reductionist to the point of hyperbole in my initial post. Also, as Antifar said [citation needed] </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Strider102 01/29/22 3:01:12 PM #47:	Honestly it doesn't matter which side won. At the end of the day other countries would see this and would use that opportunity to strike and finish off whichever side is left. Only question is which country it would be, unless it was a unified effort to eradicate a common enemy. So yeah, a Civil War would lead to our downfall. --- Last Cloudia ID: 188850453 <cite>Strider102 posted [p:962183462] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Honestly it doesn't matter which side won. At the end of the day other countries would see this and would use that opportunity to strike and finish off whichever side is left. Only question is which country it would be, unless it was a unified effort to eradicate a common enemy. So yeah, a Civil War would lead to our downfall. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 01/29/22 3:04:41 PM #48:	Antifar posted... [citation needed] you cant see the difference between what we've done in the middle east and what we did on august 6th 1945? --- Taarsidath-an halsaam. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:962183551] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>[citation needed]</quote>you cant see the difference between what we've done in the middle east and what we did on august 6th 1945? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NeoShadowhen 01/29/22 3:13:21 PM #49:	Strider102 posted... Honestly it doesn't matter which side won. At the end of the day other countries would see this and would use that opportunity to strike and finish off whichever side is left. Only question is which country it would be, unless it was a unified effort to eradicate a common enemy. So yeah, a Civil War would lead to our downfall. Wed get split up Berlin style. West coast would belong to China and the East coast would belong to Germany. ~~its always Germany~~ <cite>NeoShadowhen posted [p:962183757] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Strider102 posted... </cite> <quote>Honestly it doesn't matter which side won. At the end of the day other countries would see this and would use that opportunity to strike and finish off whichever side is left. Only question is which country it would be, unless it was a unified effort to eradicate a common enemy. So yeah, a Civil War would lead to our downfall.</quote> Wed get split up Berlin style. West coast would belong to China and the East coast would belong to Germany. its always Germany </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
coolguyjimmy 01/29/22 3:25:19 PM #50:	Antifar posted... [citation needed] The US Field Manual (1956) states, in the context of sieges and bombardments, that *loss of life and damage to property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained.* The US Instructors Guide (1985) states: In attacking a military target, the amount of suffering or destruction must be held to the minimum necessary to accomplish the mission. *Any excessive destruction or suffering not required to accomplish the objective is illegal as a violation of the law of war.* The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: It is not unlawful to cause incidental injury to civilians or collateral damage to civilian objects, during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. *Incidental injury or collateral damage must not, however, be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack.* The manual further specifies that a weapon is not indiscriminate simply because it may cause incidental or collateral civilian casualties, provided such casualties are not foreseeably excessive in light of the expected military advantage to be gained. The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: The principle of proportionality is directly linked to the principle of distinction. While distinction is concerned with focusing the scope and means of attack so as to cause the least amount of damage to protected persons and property, proportionality is concerned with weighing the military advantage one expects to gain against the unavoidable and incidental loss to civilians and civilian property that will result from the attack. The principle of proportionality requires the commander to conduct a balancing test to determine if the incidental injury, including death to civilians and damage to civilian objects, is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Note that the principle of proportionality under the law of armed conflict is different than the term proportionality as used in self-defense. The Handbook further states that *excessive collateral damage must be avoided to the extent possible and, consistent with mission accomplishment and the security of the force, unnecessary human suffering prevented.* In 1972, the General Counsel of the US Department of Defense stated: "I would like to reiterate that it is recognized by all states that they may not lawfully use their weapons against civilian population[s] or civilians as such, but there is no rule of international law that restrains them from using weapons against enemy armed forces or military targets. The correct rule of international law which has applied in the past and continued to apply to the conduct of our military operations in Southeast Asia is that the loss of life and damage to property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained. A review of the operating authorities and rules of engagements for all of our forces in Southeast Asia, in air as well as ground and sea operations, by my office reveals that not only are such operations in conformity with this basic rule, but that in addition, extensive constraints are imposed to avoid if at all possible the infliction of casualties on noncombatants and the destruction of property other than that related to the military operations in carrying out military objectives." In 1991, in reaction to an International Committee of the Red Cross memorandum on the applicability of International Humanitarian Law in the Gulf region, the US Department of the Army stated: "The concept of incidental loss of life excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated generally is measured against an overall campaign. While it is difficult to weigh the possibility of collateral civilian casualties on a target-by-target basis, minimization of collateral civilian casualties is a continuing responsibility at all levels of the targeting process. Combat is a give-and-take between attacker and defender, and collateral civilian casualties are likely to occur notwithstanding the best efforts of either party. What is prohibited is wanton disregard for possible collateral civilian casualties." In March 2010, in a speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, the US State Departments Legal Adviser stated: "This Administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including: - Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In U.S. operations against al-Qaeda and its associated forces including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that collateral damage is kept to a minimum" <cite>coolguyjimmy posted [p:962184034] in In a Civil... [t:79874322]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>[citation needed]</quote> The US Field Manual (1956) states, in the context of sieges and bombardments, that loss of life and damage to property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained. The US Instructors Guide (1985) states: In attacking a military target, the amount of suffering or destruction must be held to the minimum necessary to accomplish the mission. Any excessive destruction or suffering not required to accomplish the objective is illegal as a violation of the law of war. The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: It is not unlawful to cause incidental injury to civilians or collateral damage to civilian objects, during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. Incidental injury or collateral damage must not, however, be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack. The manual further specifies that a weapon is not indiscriminate simply because it may cause incidental or collateral civilian casualties, provided such casualties are not foreseeably excessive in light of the expected military advantage to be gained. The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: The principle of proportionality is directly linked to the principle of distinction. While distinction is concerned with focusing the scope and means of attack so as to cause the least amount of damage to protected persons and property, proportionality is concerned with weighing the military advantage one expects to gain against the unavoidable and incidental loss to civilians and civilian property that will result from the attack. The principle of proportionality requires the commander to conduct a balancing test to determine if the incidental injury, including death to civilians and damage to civilian objects, is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Note that the principle of proportionality under the law of armed conflict is different than the term proportionality as used in self-defense. The Handbook further states that excessive collateral damage must be avoided to the extent possible and, consistent with mission accomplishment and the security of the force, unnecessary human suffering prevented. In 1972, the General Counsel of the US Department of Defense stated: "I would like to reiterate that it is recognized by all states that they may not lawfully use their weapons against civilian population[s] or civilians as such, but there is no rule of international law that restrains them from using weapons against enemy armed forces or military targets. The correct rule of international law which has applied in the past and continued to apply to the conduct of our military operations in Southeast Asia is that the loss of life and damage to property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained. A review of the operating authorities and rules of engagements for all of our forces in Southeast Asia, in air as well as ground and sea operations, by my office reveals that not only are such operations in conformity with this basic rule, but that in addition, extensive constraints are imposed to avoid if at all possible the infliction of casualties on noncombatants and the destruction of property other than that related to the military operations in carrying out military objectives." In 1991, in reaction to an International Committee of the Red Cross memorandum on the applicability of International Humanitarian Law in the Gulf region, the US Department of the Army stated: "The concept of incidental loss of life excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated generally is measured against an overall campaign. While it is difficult to weigh the possibility of collateral civilian casualties on a target-by-target basis, minimization of collateral civilian casualties is a continuing responsibility at all levels of the targeting process. Combat is a give-and-take between attacker and defender, and collateral civilian casualties are likely to occur notwithstanding the best efforts of either party. What is prohibited is wanton disregard for possible collateral civilian casualties." In March 2010, in a speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, the US State Departments Legal Adviser stated: "This Administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including: - Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In U.S. operations against al-Qaeda and its associated forces including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that collateral damage is kept to a minimum" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > In a Civil War part II blue states would dominate. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > In a Civil War part II blue states would dominate.